Prospective Federal Reserve Board member Stephen Moore may be forced, nay compelled, to sacrifice his own career dreams for the sake of his deep loyalty to The Party. (Mostly because it looks like he can’t count on enough votes from his fellow Republicans to sail through his confirmation.) Per The Hill:
Stephen Moore, President Trump’s controversial pick for the Federal Reserve Board, said Wednesday that he is “totally committed” to seeing the process through, but would bow out if he became a political liability to Republicans.
In a Thursday interview with The Wall Street Journal, the conservative economist and commentator said he would stick with the vetting process for a formal nomination unless it could damage the GOP’s standing in the 2020 election.
“I’m totally committed to it as long as the White House is totally committed to it,” Moore told the Journal, ceding that he would drop out, “if something I said or something I’ve done becomes a political problem.”…
Trump floated Moore, an adviser to his 2016 presidential campaign, for a spot on the Fed board last month, but has not yet formally nominated him…
While Moore has been a figure in Washington conservative circles for decades, several Republican senators expressed concerns about his close ties to Trump, who has repeatedly and harshly criticized the Fed for almost a year.
Moore has also been fiercely critical of the Fed and reportedly won Trump’s blessing for an appointment with an opinion piece blasting the independent central bank.
Moore has also come under scrutiny for old columns he authored opposing the presence of women in sports or sportscasting, which he said Wednesday that he regretted…
Friends, we love to talk about how breathtakingly stupid and corrupt these guys are, but let's remember that they're also INSANELY LAME. https://t.co/SkPngaujcy
— David Roth (@david_j_roth) April 23, 2019
Stephen Moore has built a long career in and around conservative politics by repeatedly advocating for the government to cut taxes. He is not great at it, but it is a quirk of that job that he doesn’t really have to be great at it, or even good at it. He just needs to do exactly what’s expected of him, always. Moore’s first foray into actual politics didn’t end well—he co-founded the Club For Growth in 1999 with the aim of electing Republicans who would pledge to cut taxes, but mismanaged the organization such that it was forced to pay a $350,000 fine to the Federal Election Commission in 2004. He was forced out that same year, and has spent most of his time doing his Libertarian Teddy Ruxpin duties in various sinecures ever since.
Donald Trump wants to appoint Moore to the Federal Reserve Board because he’s seen Moore on TV—he’s on TV a lot, generally being “wrong all the time, about pretty basic things,” in the words of the Washington Post’s Catherine Rampell—and because Moore has spent the entirety of Trump’s administration flattering Trump in impossibly goofy ways…
On Monday, CNN’s Andrew Kaczynski revealed that Moore’s scouting report on the president was somehow not remotely his worst sports opinion. Kaczynski dove into Moore’s blogs from the National Review’s website in 2001, 2002, and 2003 and found posts asserting “that women should be banned from refereeing, announcing or beer vending at men’s college basketball games, [and] asking if there was any area in life ‘where men can take vacation from women.’”
Other columns discussed … well you know every hacky moan that has ever been registered by some replacement-level barnacle about hysterical women or nagging wives or creeping cultural fruitiness vis-a-vis sports? Moore did all those, too. He complained about women’s college basketball games being aired on ESPN in 2002. He complained about women playing alongside men in pickup games. He complained about women’s tennis players advocating for better pay. “If there is an injustice in tennis,” Moore wrote in 2000, “it’s that women like Martina Hingis and Monica Seles make millions of dollars a year, even though there are hundreds of men at the collegiate level (assuming their schools haven’t dropped the sport) who could beat them handily.” Moore complained about women broadcasting sports over and over again, but later allowed himself a saucy caveat—“Women are permitted to participate, if and only if, they look like Bonnie Bernstein. The fact that Bonnie knows nothing about basketball is entirely irrelevant.” In retrospect, Moore complained a lot!…
That all of the above is sexist matters, at least insofar as it tells you a little bit about what Stephen Moore is about. But it’s probably just as meaningful that all of it sucks—that it’s lame and dull and smug and so utterly, totally beat in every way, and that all of it is so spotlessly mediocre in the way it rephrases ancient stupidities so that they somehow feel even older and less interesting than they are. That tells you something about Stephen Moore, too, I guess, but it’s also nothing that wasn’t already obvious, and already something very much like his job.
Read the whole thing — purely for entertainment purposes, of course, because Dave Roth is infinitely more entertaining than ‘humorist’ Stephen Moore.
Sexist comments aside, my main objection to placing Moore on the Fed is still probably that he can’t tell whether prices are going up or down https://t.co/WEi7qjQlRe
— Catherine Rampell (@crampell) April 24, 2019
Also this suggestion that objections to Moore are just kneejerk opposition to *anyone* Trump would choose for the Fed are pure poppycock. Trump already appointed 4 of 5 sitting Fed Board members. All sailed through without controversy. Because they were competent professionals
— Catherine Rampell (@crampell) April 24, 2019