An editorial in National Review defends the Federal Reserve and Ben Bernanke's chairmanship of it: "Bernanke, who is being sweated by senators soon to vote on retaining him as chairman of the Federal Reserve, is the principal architect of the government's interventions in the banking industry during the financial crisis. That intervention probably represented the best available course of action in the circumstances, and it very likely averted a much worse recession than the one we've experienced." At the Campaign For Liberty (Honorary chairman, Ron Paul), Thomas Woods calls the editorial "absolutely unbelievable" and wonders if he picked up the wrong political magazine, "Seriously, am I reading The New Republic? Is there even a difference anymore? Pro-Fed, pro-empire, pro-bailout, anti-Ron Paul -- the left-neocons and right-neocons sure have a lot in common." I'm not sure that neocon is the right word, and I don't know that "empire" has much to do with it, but it is interesting that National Review is endorsing the Bush-Paulson-Geithner-Bernanke intervention in the banking industry as "the best available course of action in the circumstances" at a time when President Obama is nominating Mr. Bernanke for another term as Fed chairman.