There is an argument that somebody who has built a food-processing and consumer-service business and met its payroll—like Herman Cain—should be on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, in order to keep the staff and the other Governors reality-based in the sense that it would force them to explain themselves to somebody whose experience is in the real and not the financial economy. There is no argument that Herman Cain is the best businessman for the slot.
There is no argument at all that Stephen Moore—whose qualification is having played an economist on TV, and being willing to dump whatever of his previous policy positions (free trade? TPP? gold standard? anything else?) over the side whenever his political masters demand—belongs on the Fed.
The pro-Moore pro-Cain pieces that are currently being planted are reduced to closing with "Moore and Cain would only be two of 12 FOMC votes". But Republicans—save Greg Mankiw and Ross Douthat—are in lockstep behind them. Well—almost in lockstep. Herman Cain is the stronger (not strong) candidate. Republican Senators Kevin Cramer (ND), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Cory Gardner (CO), and Mitt Romney (UT) are for Moore and against Cain.
This identity politics stuff is killing America:
Jim Bianco: The Fed Would Benefit from Stephen Moore, Herman Cain: "Policymaking positions should help determine policy, not act as a rubber stamp for the staff or Chairman. They should hold divergent views, come from different backgrounds and be ready to explain themselves. Policy makers should be given the resources to flesh out their ideas. If confirmed, Moore and Cain would only be two of 12 FOMC votes. Their unique perspectives could make the Fed a stronger institution...