Its really about gobbling up the GOP. Or more precisely, purging the GOP of those who adhere to a different foreign policy doctrine.
SeekAndFind is correct when he points to the foreign policy isolationists. There are different groups within the isolationists so you might say paleolibertarians, or libertarians, or paleocons, or paleopopulists, or goldenagers. They are all isolationists and the two most prominent are Pat Buchannan and Ron Paul. Rand Paul was able to disguise his isolationism until May when he and the two antiwar dems voted against intervening in Syria in the vote taken in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Then GOPer Lee joined those 3 to introduce legislation opposing intervening in Syria.
The NeoCons have spoken openly about purging isolationists like Pat B and Ron P from the GOP.
They also have spoken openly about purging the foreign policy realists from the GOP. Many realists have been purged. Kissinger, Scowcroft, James Baker, George Schultz, GHW Bush, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Richard Lugar, Chuck Hagel. Now they will run NeoCon Liz Cheney against Realist Enzi in Wyoming.
There is no similar group in America. Certainly not the paleolibertarians or paleocons. Everyone in America supports individual citizens and corporations doing business around the world. The question is whether our government should be constantly involved in every international body and "crisis".
I reject the notion that Pat Buchanan or Rand Paul or Ron Paul are isolationists. They are merely anti-meddling.
Our government should be primarily in the business of developing trade agreements with other nations and using its power to keep our business partners to their promises.
What sane person really believed that we could win the Iraq war and bring democracy to that hobbled-together country of sworn enemy populations in a reasonable amount of time? Anyone with a brain in his head had to know that the only possible way to bring democracy to Iraq was to impose a benevolent dictatorship on the country, and that that would not be politically viable. Therefore we should never have gone into Iraq, especially since all of the Republicans screamed after the failures in Vietnam that we should not go to war unless we had a viable exit strategy. For Iraq, there was no viable exit strategy, therefore we should never have gone in.
Anyone who continues to support the notion that going into Iraq was a good idea has no business labeling Pat Buchanan and the Paul's as isolationist.
I'm not saying that you are, but so many people are throwing around the isolationist label incorrectly that it is very frustrating.
The Democrats are busy hollowing out America from the inside while the Neocons are committing us to a continuous future of debt and strife and never-ending war.
Our prospects are bleak unless we return to the Constitutional principles that made this nation great to begin with.