Stupid Republicans? Here's a List of 22

Lamar Alexander (TN)
John Barrasso (WY)
Robert Bennett (UT)
Christopher Bond (MO)
Richard Burr (NC)
Saxby Chambliss (GA)
Tom Coburn (OK)
Thad Cochran (MS)
Susan Collins (ME)
Bob Corker (TN)
Mike Enzi (WY)
Lindsey Graham (SC)
Jude Gregg (NH)
Orrin Hatch (UT)
Johnny Isakson (GA)
Mike Johanns (NE)
Jon Kyl (AZ)
Richard Lugar (IN)
Mitch McConnell (KY)
Lisa Merkowski (AK)
Olympia Snowe (ME)
George Voinovich (OH)

Dr. Coburn... I'm especially disappointed in you, sir.

Now I get it. Politics aside - even the substance of the argument concerning Bernanke's competence aside - there's a reasonable, honorable case for taking the view that unless a president's nominee is morally or ethically unfit for office, a president's nominee should be confirmed by the Senate. Again, I get it. A president is entitled to his choice of advisors.

The Chairman of the Federal Reserve is NOT simply "an advisor," though. Nor - strictly speaking - does he "work for the President."

Who does the Fed Chairman work for? Congress. (Though "work for" doesn't really describe the relationship.)

The Federal Reserve (whose Chairman and other Board Members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate) is an "Independent Body." Its mission...

The Federal Reserve System is the central bank of the United States. It was founded by Congress in 1913 to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system.

"...founded by Congress..."

To further complicate matters, while the Fed was created by Congress and by law reports to Congress, according to the US Code...

...wherever any power vested by this chapter in the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or the Federal reserve agent appears to conflict with the powers of the Secretary of the Treasury, such powers shall be exercised subject to the supervision and control of the Secretary.

(And who does the Secretary of the Treasury "work for?" The President. Not Congress... the President.)

As one can see, fitting the Federal Reserve into a neat little box as regards "Separation of Powers" issues is... er... difficult - to say the least.

So... where does this leave us? I suggest you look upon the Federal Reserve as an unofficial (and some would say extraconstitutional) Fourth Branch of the Federal Government.

In any case, whomever the Fed Chairman "works for" or "doesn't work for," the issue at hand concerns whether Ben Bernanke should have been reappointed for another term as Fed Chairman.

I say "No!"

Which Senators were with me...???

Republicans who voted NOT to confirm Bernanke:

Roger Wicker (MS)
David Vitter (LA)
John Thune (SD)
Richard Shelby (AL)
Jeff Sessions (AL)
Pat Roberts (KS)
James Risch (ID)
John McCain (AZ)
George LeMieux (FL)
James Inhofe (OK)
Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX)
Chuck Grassley (IA)
John Ensign (NV)
Jim DeMint (SC)
Mike Crapo (ID)
John Cornyn (TX)
Jim Bunning (KY)
Sam Brownback (KS)

Thank you, John McCain... though I can't help but ponder the question, "If YOU had won the presidency last November would YOU as President have reappointed Bernanke?"

Bernie Sanders - self-proclaimed socialist and "Independent" Senator representing Vermont also voted "nay" on the Bernanke reappointment.

Thanks to you too, Senator Sanders... though as with my doubts regarding McCain's intellectual consistency, I wonder if you would have stuck to your position if yours had been the make or break vote for President Obama's nominee.

Eleven Democratic Senators also broke with their leadership and voted "nay" on the Bernanke reappointment. Good for them!

Returning to the question of how Senators should look upon appointment issues, it seems to me that since the Office of Fed Chairman is arguably "independent" (though in a lesser sense than the literal independence of the Judicial branch), a president's choice for Fed Chairman should be given about the same "deference" by Senators as they give a president's choice of Supreme Court nominees.

In other words... not a lot.

No disrespect to President Obama... and this would apply equally if we were talking about a Republican president... but in the case of voting for or against the seating/reappointment of a Fed Chairman, the only issue Senators should consider is their own best expectation of how the nominee will perform. In other words, if one believes a nominee will "run" the Federal Reserve in a manner that damages the economy, which causes "bubbles," which policies will lead to inflation - likely stagflation... well... then the Senator should vote "nay."

I believe Ben Bernanke is part of the problem - not part of the solution to our economic mess.

I believe that like Hank Paulson and Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke represents "crony capitalism" to the detriment of free markets and true capitalism.

Oh, the irony... so many Bush appointees are now Obama appointees...

To any United States Senator who voted "yea" on the Bernanke reappointment while believing that Bernanke's policies are not in the best interests of our nation...

SHAME ON YOU.