"Whether calls for a gold standard get traction in Washington remains to be seen. Jack Kemp, the Republican Party’s vice-presidential nominee in 1996 and the leader of its growth wing for 25 years, this summer also called for a gold link to the dollar, in part so that America avoids the deflation of assets that is sinking Japan’s economy. "

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/strategist-sees-gold-lining-jumpy/story.aspx?guid=%7B08429168%2D8318%2D476F%2DB924%2DBF920931A96C%7D

"But it was Mr. Kemp and his economic proposals that brought in the deep-pocket businessmen with contributions to pay the rent and salaries. They liked his pro-business attitudes, even his suggestion that monetary reform include a return to the gold standard.’

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B04E3D91538F932A3575AC0A960958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

As for Kemp, I’m pretty sure that it’s not his advocacy of the gold standard that McCain is referring to, but his affiliation with supply side Reaganomics.  That is a good point though, and certainly McCain will need to be more explicit as the campaign unfolds.

I can sum up what I look for on economic policy in a candidate in two words: fiscal responsibility. McCain’s always been a deficit hawk with a tendency to support tax cuts when they’re reasonable and balanced with spending restraint. He’s opposed pork and done so in action as well as words. That tells me all I really need to know about his knowledge of economics- because I’d prefer a conservative economic policy that tilts toward keeping government out of the way of the private sector.

Also, your assertion that other countries’ reliance on "fiat money" would be unsustainable assumes the conclusion that fiat money is bad. That is an argument, not an objective fact, and it is one of the most poorly evidenced arguments in the whole slate of the Voldemortist pantheon. It is once again an argument from a scary label, bereft of explanation, evidence, or analysis. to use it as the linchpin of your claim that unilateral free trade will intrinsically result in reciprocity simply compounds one logical error with another.

You really need to move beyond the scary labels as replacements for arguments and you really need to start providing evidence for your assertions if you want to be seen as doing anything more than just regurgitating talking points.

Historically, I am on solid ground here. When there is an opportunity to impose tariffs without fear of reciprocal tariffs, states usually do so. They seem able to sustain such market protections over long periods of time unless there is some institutional pressure (e.g. WTO or trade agreements like NAFTA — the very things that Voldemort wants to abolish in favor of a purely unilateral approach) forcing them to engage in some degree reciprocal openness. On their face, your assertions do not appear to have any empirical support. I’d therefore like to see your evidence rather than just more restatements of assertions that the way that the world has worked will magically change in Voldemort or CATO is suddenly put in charge.