Romney says he hasn't considered replacement for Bernanke

"Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney reaffirmed his decision on Thursday that if he wins the Nov. 6 election he would not reappoint Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to a third term, though he hasn't considered whom he would name to run the U.S. central bank....."I haven't considered a single person at this point, given no names any thought or deliberation," he said."  

 Does that seem a bit strange to anyone else?  I am going to get rid of Bernanke but I have given no thought what-so-ever as to who I would pick to replace him in arguably the second most powerful role in the US.  The article goes on to suggest Greg Mankiw and Glenn Hubbard as two possible Romney picks for Fed Chairman.

Actually of all the economists on the right hand side of the aisle Mankiw would be one of the saner choices.  I am not saying that Mankiw would be my number one choice for Fed Chairman - but taking into account the crazy policies which some of the "respected" economists on the R side of the aisle have been promoting  recently (gold standard, expansion through austerity, Laffer curve) - he would certainly be one of the better possible picks from a Romney administration.   Hubbard certainly has a distinguished academic background but sometimes in playing for team-Republican he makes some crazy-scary statements (see here)  I find it hard to believe that Hubbard actually believes that BS.  Mankiw also plays for team-R but he shys away from promoting nutty Tea-Party pleasing policies.

Mankiw's fame is as one of the fathers of the new-Keynesian economics school.  That fact is ironic for two reasons (1) Keynes is an anathema to the new world of Republican-Tea Party-Austrian economics and (2) the term new-Keynesian is a bit of a misnomer - they would more properly be called new-Monetarists.  More on what this means over the weekend.