Kentucky Senator Rand Paul officially suspended his campaign this morning, a day after the disappointing showing at the Iowa caucus, at which we were told Paul would "shock the world." As regular readers know, I have been keeping close tabs on everything Rand over the past year-plus in a weekly column and supplemental podcast, so I have watched his campaign unfold in detail. Let's take a look at the campaign and, from a mile-high viewpoint, weigh the impact Paul's running has had on the liberty movement.{Note: I'm recovering from very recent back surgery and fighting to keep coherent thought lines through a cocktail of painkillers, so bear with me if I start to meander. In typical Randian fashion, this announcement couldn't come at a worse time!}Paul's statement this morning:

"It's been an incredible honor to run a principled campaign for the White House. Today, I will end where I began, ready and willing to fight for the cause of Liberty.Across the country thousands upon thousands of young people flocked to our message of limited government, privacy, criminal justice reform and a reasonable foreign policy. Brushfires of Liberty were ignited and those will carry on, as will I.Although, today I will suspend my campaign for President, the fight is far from over. I will continue to carry the torch of Liberty in the United States Senate and I look forward to earning the privilege to represent the people of Kentucky for another term."

Rand first announced his campaign in April of last year, and initially he received high levels of support from both the libertarians of the country and the general populace. At the time Hillary Clinton was the only Democratic candidate on anyone's mind, and in head-to-head polls Rand was equal or surpassing Clinton nationally. This support came on the back of very favorable media coverage, including TIME magazine's proclamation that Paul was "The Most Interesting Man in Politics" in October of 2014.Rand was supposed to be the new face of the GOP party - a new wave of conservative politicians that reflected a more socially liberal citizenry that was as tired of big government spending, spying and subsidies as it was of never-ending wars. The lasting momentum from Ron Paul's failed bid in 2012 seemed to be palpable, and there was a ready-built body of support and - equally importantly - fundraising in place for a libertarian contender. Rand's actions in the Senate leading into his announcement hadn't been 100% as true to the liberty cause as his father's, but he was close enough that the vast majority of Ron's base held him in high regard. It really looked like all the pieces were in place.And that's when things began to go wrong.From the get-go, #Randypants, as we've taken to calling him, went out of his way to distance himself from the liberty base that had led to his rise. He wooed prominent GOP establishment types - making hay with the likes of Mitch McConnell - and took a trip to Israel in order to please the neocons of the party. Rand would regularly refuse to label himself as a libertarian, instead using a variety of terms including one he seemed to settle on more than most - a "liberty-leaning Republican."What did this result in? Confusion. The populace, which had some small grasp of the concepts of liberty was told by the media (despite Rand's own protests and our own) that Paul was a libertarian. His actions and words at times ran contrary, leading to a mislabeling of the ideas of libertarians, which were bastardized by Rand and largely miscommunicated to an unknowledgable nation.Rand's goal was to find a point between libertarians and the basic GOP voter. What he actually found was a no-man's land where the establishment Republicans and voters viewed him as too far outside of their own breed, while libertarians felt so betrayed that they couldn't support him like they did with Ron.Rand quickly lost momentum.Rand's early positive polls fell precipitously with the entrance of Ben Carson and Donald Trump - who captivated some of Ron Paul's 2012 support in Iowa - and Ted Cruz (who tiptoes the line between liberty and neoconservatism far more palatably for regular red voters.).As his support waned, Paul ran desperately towards the more shameful views of GOP party voters. Because of the rise of ISIS, Rand's foreign policy views came under attack. Whereas Ron was adamant and loud about his beliefs as to the ongoing cause of terrorist activity targeted towards the United States - namely that we brought this on ourselves due to aggressive overt and covert military action in the Middle East - Rand was more mild. He vowed to fight ISIS, but wanted a declaration of war. All well and good. as wars should be declared, but for libertarians it didn't acknowledge the root issue and for the terrified masses, Rand's response was milquetoast compared to the more bold vows from Trump and others.Rand was left in the dust, instead trying to make impacts with badly concieved and recieved legislation like his bill to ban the entrance of refugees from 34 countries with "jihadist" ties. It did nothing for GOP voters and even less for libertarians. Only towards the very end of his now aborted campaign did Rand actually circle back to the libertarian philosophy of non-aggression in application to foreign policy, regime change and nation building - something he should have espoused and explained from day one.It was too little, too late.Moving on from foreign policy, Rand also tried to woo the broader conservative base by appealing to voters on topics like abortion, putting forth bills to defund Planned Parenthood, and to make abortion essentially illegal on a federal level via the Life at Conception Act. Libertarians are all for defunding virtually any privately owned institution, including Planned Parenthood, but not for the reasons that Rand was proposing it. The motive was too shallow and obvious, further distancing him from the once-enamored base.These are just some examples of the litany of mistakes made by Paul and his camp during this campaign, which was badly run and poorly funded. About the only laudable aspect of the campaign's handling was Rand's social media efforts, which were highly effective tools for publicity rivaling Bernie Sanders for social media mentions oftentimes. While social media can be effective, it still doesn't resonate with the majority of active voters, who tend to be older.So...what can we take away from this? Here is the good:The simple fact that Rand was accepted as a viable candidate early in the process and that the GOP party was ostensibly changing is a huge positive.The change is happening, but slowly. Rand's camp overestimated both how long it would take for Ron's college-level support to gain positions of prominence and for those ideas to spread and take a wider hold in a broad swathe of voters. But it is happening. Unless Rand's failure puts a dent in that progress...more on that later.Continued inclusion in mainstream debates has helped spread the ideas of liberty.Even though they were thoroughly thinned and muddied early on, Paul did manage to get through some of the more prominent concepts at the end, including the dangers of regime change and the dire need to end the War on Drugs and reform the criminal justice system. I'm upset that the straightforward points that libertarians hold dear were confused, but this at least provides a basis for a start of conversation with more people, and that is how effective change can happen.Rand was a consistent voice against big government and the spying state.One thing he didn't waffle on was government intrusion into the private lives of Americans, which is something he seemed to have a large amount of support for from voters on both sides of the spectrum.After the next president it really may be time for a true libertarian candidate.Now that Rand is out, there isn't much left that gives hope. In the GOP it's all war, all the time with the exception of Donald Trump, who is such a polarizing figure that his presidency would leave a bad taste in half the country's mouth regardless of his performance in office. For the Democrats, Clinton is an abomination that Democrats are blind to. She belongs in the GOP primary. Sanders has fairly good foreign policy chops and wants to end the War on Drugs, but his economic policies can all but assure his failure, and again, hatred from half the country. This adds up to an angry nation in 4 or 8 years, when libertarian ideas have taken a stronger hold.Rand can now focus on the Senate.Even though he isn't perfect, Paul is still the best Senator for liberty by a far margin. It's not close. Kentucky Mayor Jim Gray is running against Rand for his Senate seat, and now Paul can return to assure he maintains his post.And the bad...We've seen how easily Americans can be seduced by fear. Without ISIS, who knows how this campaign would have proceeded? Perhaps Rand wouldn't have continued to distance himself from his liberty roots if not for bad advice on how to react to the current situation in the Middle East. And perhaps there was no "right" way to proceed from a voter standpoint. The debate crowds seem to lap up every mention of bombing the Middle East as much as possible, or carpet bombing ISIS, which makes no sense. So maybe there was no way for Paul to win with the wider, shivering public, but I maintain it was a mistake to void his principles on the topic. Go out strong in your convictions.We don't know what Rand will do with the money he did raise.Ron's usage of his leftover donation money was a disgrace. He funneled it into the "Campaign for Liberty," which is now essentially defunct and a sorry shell of what it had initially been. CFL has become a slush fund for Paul uber-advisors Jesse Benton and John Tate to work. Hopefully Rand will find a better and more noble use for the funds left in the coffers.Rand's failure could have set acceptance of libertarian electability back.Because of the absolutely poor showing at the end - even worse than Ron, who placed 2nd in the Iowa popular vote (and eventually, all the delegates)- one has to wonder if the broader public will return to the position (perhaps they never left) that libertarian candidates are to be ignored and can't win an election. Paul had a chance to change that and squandered it. Even if he had failed to gain the nomination, a respectable showing would have furthered the cause and ceased the never-ending refrain from voters that any liberty candidate doesn't have a chance and thus they shouldn't waste time trying to support him/her. That's highly concerning.Hopefully Rand's return to the Senate will continue to lay the tracks of progress and inspire future liberty candidates to take office.Your thoughts are more than welcome on Paul's campaign in the comments or on our Private Facebook Group: The Lions of Liberty Forum!Be sure to check out the latest Pauluses and Minuses Podcast!Check out the full “Rand Pauluses and Minuses” Archive!The Lions of Liberty are on Twitter, Facebook & Google+Check out our YouTube Channel!Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!