As I was reading the various postmortems being written for Rand Paul's 2016 presidential campaign, there was a mention of a Time magazine cover that touted Paul as the "most interesting man in politics". I was curious to learn what the issue date was and did a search for it. The editors at Time made that declaration in October of 2014, more than six months before Paul announced his White House bid. The article is only accessible to Time subscribers, so I was unable to read it, but would guess the writers were already assuming that he would be running for president in 2016. As far as what prompted them to label Paul as such, your guess is as good as mine.
For me at least, the most striking thing about Rand Paul's failed candidacy would be the fact that he didn't even manage to draw as much support as his father did during his two presidential runs. Rand's strategy seemed clear enough going into the campaign. He needed to retain the small but passionate libertarian following that his father had built, while simultaneously appealing to a wider swath of voters. Ron Paul proved unable to draw support from either mainstream Republican voters, or the party establishment, for the simple reason that he refused to compromise on his principles. And it was that quality that endeared Ron Paul to his loyal followers.
As it turned out, Rand Paul ended up with the worst of both possible worlds. His abandonment of what his supporters assumed were deeply-held principles infuriated them, without offering Paul any corresponding gains to offset the defections. All politicians are guilty of the old "my position has evolved" dodge, but Paul's positions sometimes seemed to be evolving from hour-to-hour. His father was widely derided as being an isolationist crackpot, but at least Ron Paul had a coherent worldview that he didn't deviate from. His son ended up all over the map, and never really offered a compelling reason to support his candidacy. Even so, like his father before him, Rand Paul was frequently the only participant in those debates that made even a damn bit of sense.
For me at least, the most striking thing about Rand Paul's failed candidacy would be the fact that he didn't even manage to draw as much support as his father did during his two presidential runs. Rand's strategy seemed clear enough going into the campaign. He needed to retain the small but passionate libertarian following that his father had built, while simultaneously appealing to a wider swath of voters. Ron Paul proved unable to draw support from either mainstream Republican voters, or the party establishment, for the simple reason that he refused to compromise on his principles. And it was that quality that endeared Ron Paul to his loyal followers.
As it turned out, Rand Paul ended up with the worst of both possible worlds. His abandonment of what his supporters assumed were deeply-held principles infuriated them, without offering Paul any corresponding gains to offset the defections. All politicians are guilty of the old "my position has evolved" dodge, but Paul's positions sometimes seemed to be evolving from hour-to-hour. His father was widely derided as being an isolationist crackpot, but at least Ron Paul had a coherent worldview that he didn't deviate from. His son ended up all over the map, and never really offered a compelling reason to support his candidacy. Even so, like his father before him, Rand Paul was frequently the only participant in those debates that made even a damn bit of sense.
