Rand Paul is blowing up right now.

Damn it, there was never any official endorsement. He said "He Supports Romney against Obama and then NEVER campaigned with or for him and even criticized hum during the campaign.

hit the nail on the head. What use is he if he becomes the enemy?

Yes, he is.

Some bills Rand has sponsored:

Cut Federal Spending Act of 2011 (S.162): proposed to cut $500 billion in federal spending in FY2011.

Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2011 (S.202): the Senate duplicate version of Ron Paul's House bill (H.R.459), requiring a full audit of the Fed before the end of 2012.

Fourth Amendment Restoration Act (S.1070): a little bit complicated, since it amends a lot of existing law, but in essence it limits the ability of the federal government to conduct Unconstitutional searches

A bill to authorize the interstate traffic of unpasteurized milk and milk products that are packaged for direct human consumption (S.1955): ...self explanatory

A Bill to Permit Voluntary Economic Activity (S.2269): "Prohibits the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act from being construed as prohibiting, banning, or otherwise extending to any voluntary economic coordination, cooperation, agreement, or other association, compact, contract, or covenant entered into by or between any individual or group of individuals."

Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012 (S.3287): Requires that a warrant be obtained to use a drone for domestic surveillance

A bill to require security screening of passengers at airports to be carried out by private screening companies, and for other purposes (S.3303): ...self explanatory

A bill to provide limitations on United States assistance, and for other purposes (S.3576): cuts foreign aid to Egypt, Pakistan, and Libya

In 1983 Murray Rothbard wrote:

Nineteenth-century parties were fiercely partisan... For there was then virtually no independent vote; and the only way to win was to bring out one’s own committed partisans by being (or at least claiming to be) even more intensively devoted to party principles.
More importantly, the political party was the only instrument by which ideology could transcend and override narrow sectional and occupational interests. Now that the political parties have virtually no distinctive ideology, they have become merely floating congeries of special-interest groups, each determined to mulch the taxpayer for its own benefit. Van Buren was dedicated to party loyalty because he realized that only strong political parties could mobilize enough power to make ideology (in his case that of minimal government) triumph over special interests. Therefore, since for Van Buren party loyalty made sense only in service to ideology, he did not hesitate to split with his beloved Democratic Party – and hence to lose all credibility in the party – when in 1848 an issue arose that was to him of the highest moral importance.

Doesn't that remind you of Rand?
If you're interested in the rest of the story:

Van Buren was slated to be the [Democrat] candidate that year[1844], but something happened on the way to the triumph of laissez faire. The republic of Texas applied for admission to the United States as a slave state, and the Democrats split wide open. The slaveholder Jackson threw his weight in favor; but Van Buren, horrified at any expansion of slavery into the West, was opposed, and the Democratic Party began its permanent division on the slavery issue. Van Buren was fully aware that, with slavery on the agenda, the Democratic Party could no longer be a truly national party, but he could not countenance the extension of this pernicious institution. Hence, in 1848, when the Democracy nominated for president Lewis Cass, an apologist for slave expansion into the West, Van Buren felt compelled to abandon his cherished party loyalty and to rend the Democracy by running for president on the new, Free Soil ticket.

So Van Buren split the D's and Ran third party? interesting.
http://lewrockwell.com/burris/burris22.1.html
Van Buren was, perhaps, my favorite president. The link above describes him visiting Jefferson at Monticello and having a 'waking up' experience. After which he challenged the democrat-republican/whig/torie "era of good feelings" crooked establishment by creating the Democrat party and bringing in Jackson. MVB also calmed down a war over the border with Maine and Canada after congress authorized military force and funds. But Van Buren simply negotiated and no lives nor resources were wasted. He stayed out of war with Mexico over Texas. Also est. the independent treasury - Jackson killed the Bank, and Van Buren buried it.
If it weren't for the slave issue and the "civil" war we may have had true seeds of liberty instead of Lincoln's mass-suicide and tyranny spawning away into the future. John Tyler's betrayal of the whig party line upon ascending to the presidency was a good last ditch effort, I suppose. After that, its as if the Jeffersonians retreated to the rebel base - or went into exile perhaps, waiting for the remnant to awaken. Could it be that Rand is luke skywalker defeating the empire from within dressed in storm trooper garb, or is he Anakin, taught by the master, yet meddling with the dark side of the force, consuming him into darth vader.
If you've read this far I'm glad you got to read that ridiculousness.

They are way bigger problems.

...with an added good lord!