In the first six months of his tenure, he has designed his own budget (something, point of fact, that Senate Democrats have not accomplished), flirted with running for president and tormented Obama administration officials at a hearing over the fact that his toilets, hampered by federal water-use regulations, do not function properly.  This week, Mr. Paul’s parliamentary maneuvers nearly caused the Patriot Act to expire, and forced hundreds of colleagues in both chambers of Congress to reconsider their travel plans before a holiday weekend so he could fight for amendments to that bill.  In so doing, Mr. Paul, a Republican, managed to enrage Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader, who suggested on the floor of the Senate that Mr. Paul might not mind if terrorists get armed to the teeth. Nor did he thrill Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader and fellow Kentuckian, when he urged supporters to contact Mr. McConnell’s office with a message to get out of Mr. Paul’s way.  A senatorial peacock with a rust-colored crown, Mr. Paul stands out as someone who, at least for now, seems to be here less to make laws than points. His libertarian-leaning amendments — one would have made it harder for counterterrorism investigators to obtain firearms records and another would have relieved banks from their duty to report suspicious transactions — failed by wide margins, even among Republicans.  In the legislative spirit of his father — and who knows, potential rival one day for the White House — Representative Ron Paul of Texas, sometimes it’s more about the eggs than the omelets.  “I think there are victories and then there are symbolic victories,” Mr. Paul said in an interview Thursday. “And I think we had a symbolic victory here in the sense that we did get to talk about some of the constitutional principles of search and seizure and the Fourth Amendment.”  His role in the Senate, he said, is to “draw attention to some important questions that get shuffled aside,” he said, specifically constitutional questions that are of central importance to his libertarian base. “There aren’t many other people that seem to be asking” his sorts of questions.  Mr. Paul appears to be modeling his style somewhat on people like Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, who once forced a Friday night procedural vote on an AIDS bill then failed to show up for it, or Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, who also often stymies legislation and insists on debating his own doomed amendments.  “I love his courage,” said Mr. Coburn, with the sort of alacrity reserved for parents who just saw their child get his first base hit. “I made a lot of mistakes as I was learning. I like what he is trying to do.”  The people of Kentucky were not bait-and-switched by Mr. Paul, who decided to run for the Senate in 2009 when Senator Jim Bunning — himself a thorn in the side of the Senate, though far more cantankerously so — decided to retire. Mr. Paul made no secret of his antitax zeal, his dislike of government intervention and his willingness to stand alone.  In his first remarks to the chamber once elected, Mr. Paul suggested that he would not be backing down from many of his passionately held views. “Is compromise the noble position?” he said, not rhetorically.  Mr. Paul largely votes with his party, but stood with more Democrats than Republicans in his opposition to the Patriot Act; he was alone in voting against a bill that would penalize people for aiming laser pointers at airplanes.  This week, by threatening to hold up voting on the Patriot Act, Mr. Paul managed to get his amendments to the floor even though one of his Democratic counterparts failed in his attempt to do the same, and in spite of the fact that Mr. Reid and Mr. McConnell opposed them.  “At first we were fighting one leadership then the other,” Mr. Paul said, “I don’t think it came easy. I’m kind of worn out.”  In the end his firearms amendment, which was not supported by the National Rifle Association, got a mere 10 votes; his bank-related one got only four.  Mr. Paul’s impassioned floor speeches about civil liberties, and his gumption with his amendments, have won him fans.  “I think he’s done a really good job of being bold,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who did not support either amendment. “Obviously he is passionate about this, and nobody holds this against him because he is so sincere.”  Mr. McConnell voted for his budget plan, which also failed by a wide margin, because he said he had worked hard on it and “deserved my support.”  Some feel less charmed. Last March, during a Senate committee hearing, Mr. Paul ripped into Kathleen Hogan, deputy assistant secretary for energy efficiency at the Energy Department, saying that the department’s “busybody nature” had led to all sorts of ills, including poorly functioning low-flow toilets.  Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri, when asked if Mr. Paul had made his mark, said, “Yes he has. He has shown that.” (Pause). “He has stood out.” (Longer pause). “How do I say this? Let’s just leave it at yes!”
Senator Rand Paul, a freshman Republican from Kentucky, has used tactics that have enraged both Democratic and G.O.P. leaders.