The opposition to his renomination is, in some ways, simply amazing:
In a statement Friday morning, Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, came out against Mr. Bernanke, who was named to his post during the Bush administration. She said she had “a lot of respect” for him and praised him for preventing the economic crisis from getting even worse. “However, it is time for a change,” she said. “It is time for Main Street to have a champion at the Fed.”
“Our next Federal Reserve chairman must represent a clean break from the failed policies of the past,” Ms. Boxer said.
Another Democratic senator, Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, also announced Friday that he would vote against Mr. Bernanke.
And then there’s this:
Four senators have placed holds on Mr. Bernanke’s nomination: three Republicans, Jim Bunning of Kentucky, Jim DeMint of South Carolina and David Vitter of Louisiana, and an independent, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who describes himself as a socialist and who caucuses with the Democrats.
As a Fed Chairman, he’s not the best, and he’s not the worst. Personally, I think what we’re looking at here is scapegoating, pure and simple. His term has run out at a bad time and it’s convenient for senators, in an unstable political environment, to dump on him, a convenient target.
But here’s something for especially Republicans to think about: who do you think that state socialist Obama’s going to nominate in his place?
Overconfident Boomers, full of themselves, are notorious for not having viable “Plan B’s.” But given the sensitivity of the position, we could do a lot worse than Ben Bernanke.
Positive Infinity 