Ron Paul has as much to lose as Fred Thompson?

Time's Jay Carney previews this afternoon's GOP debate from Michigan. Most people will, quite naturally, be most concerned with judging Fred Thompson's debut performance. But Ron Paul has quite a bit at stake here too. Carney says:

Finally, there's Ron Paul, whose anti-Iraq War, libertarian message has made him this campaign cycle's surprise phenom. He forces the other candidates to spend more time defending the Bush administration than they'd like. And having pulled in as much money in the third quarter as John McCain, Paul isn't about to fade away.

True, but this debate is supposed to be concerned with economic policy. That spells trouble for Dr Paul. Hitherto his goldbuggery and old-fashioned views on "sound money" have generally been overlooked (in as much as he's received any attention at all, of course). There are plenty of people to whom Paul's anti-war, limited government message appeals who might pause to reconsider their enthusiasm if he's seen banging on and on about returning to the gold standard. It may be a dangerous moment for the campaign.

My sense is that the Paul campaign must be hoping that since there are very few people who agree with him across the board (he's a "Bad Libertarian" on trade and immigration, for instance) that they won't be put off by his antiquated, even extreme, monetary views.

However, it's a gamble. At some point Paul is likely to go too far even for voters who know he can't win but are considering voting for him to make a statement of their dissatisfaction with contemporary Republicanism. At the very least it's hard to see that Paul's views on economics are going to persuade the media to take him more seriously.

So, is this the moment Paul becomes bad for libertarians? Or is it just another example of the Paul Paradox?  It would be a shame if he were to throw away so soon the momentum - and credibility! - his fund-raising prowess has won him...

UPDATE: Paul's done pretty well. When Romney said you'd need to get the lawyers together to determine whether you could attack Iran without Congressionl approval, Paul was quick to point out it's pretty simple: you just open the constitution and read it. Points to Paul! But he was also helped by the debate pivoting away form economic policy. Yes, Ron Paul knows lots about monetary theory and yes he's been studying it for 40 years. But my point has nothing to do with whether or not Paul's views on "sound money" are correct or not but how Paul would be perceived by a media that is less inclined to give him the benefit of charity on these matters than, for instance, his anti-war stance. Still, Paul steered clear of much of that and gave soe good answers. Overall he may even have helped himself. Happily, Romney had a terrible time; unhappily this means it was also good for Giuliani.

Comments

[C Bowen]

Up to this point, most of Paul's backers have noticed the debate moderators go out of their way to not ask Paul a question on economics.

Getting rid of the income tax will sell and make the others looks timid, and more and more have figured out that the Federal Reserve operates as a printing press for the cough cough "capitalists" (err--socialists?) on Wall Street.

We'll know shortly.

[ray]

So now free market money is "antiquated" and "extreme". When did the republicans give up on free markets? The federal reserve is just another tool for those in power to regulate the economy.

[Alexia]

Oh come on! Congressman Paul knows more about economics than any of the lawyers and preachers on the stage! He's written critically acclaimed books. Heck, he left both Greenspan and Brenacke enbarassed and speechless when he questioned them on the floor of the House. I just hope he breaks away from the "the war is bankrupting us" a little so Americans can see he's deeper than the "anti-war" candidate.

[tarran]

It really irritates me when people say Ron Paul is opposed to free trade because he voted against NAFTA and CAFTA. A true free trade agreement can be written on one page. The thousands of pages of intricate regulations that comprise NAFTA and CAFTA set forth "government managed trade". Just because they slap the words "Free Trade" on the bill does not make it a free trade agreement anymore than slapping the word "Democratic" on a communist country's formal name makes it a democracy. The guy ran for office to promote Misesian economic policies fer crying out loud (see http://www.mises.org/books/paulmises.pdf).

For those of you who don't know who Ludwig von Mises was, he was the guy who predicted the Great Depression, kept Austria from suffering the same hyperinflation in that plagued Germany in the inter-war years, and wrote the theoretical proof demonstrating that socialist systems were incapable of efficiently meeting consumer demand as well as a free market. In their last meeting at a seminar, Mises called Milton Friedman a socialist before storming out of the room in disgust (Rothbard explains why: http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/16_4/16_4_3.pdf).

[Amandah]

You're crazy. Economics is one of Ron Paul's greatest strengths. He's going to win tonights debate just like he wins every debate. I'm so glad that we've had all these debates to pick the perfect president because it is letting the people see how gross the other politicians look next to Paul.

[badmedia]

Seriously, do you know anything about politics? As pointed out, economics is one of Ron Pauls strong points.

[Tim]

There are just as many people that are supporters of Ron Paul for his economic policies as there are for his anti-war stance.

And as he has pointed out many times before, you can't HAVE these wars without our current problematic monetary policy.

The problem is that he is not getting much time in this debate.

[CMoney]

Why not consider Alan Greenspan's timeless opinion in "Gold and Economic Freedom".

http://www.321gold.com/fed/greenspan/1966.html

[bruce]

Paul is the only Republican with a chance, and the only GOP candidate that even has a platform, per se. The rest are just business and war as usual. Kucinich and Paul should really team up, and I'm not the first to say so...

[Evan]

[on the gold standard]

In a recent Manchester, NH rally, the loudest applause of the day (roughly 800 - 1000 people by my est.) followed Ron's call for the end of the Federal Reserve and a return to sound money.

I'll admit: I was surprised.

Americans are opening their eyes and discovering that they've been swindled on a _great_ number of issues. I believe that trend has now reached critical mass and will not be stopped.

One should ask: What is wrong with sound money?

Do you really believe that the (not so gradual) devaluation of the cash in your bank account is a good thing?