You might be suprised by that answer. To be clear, I think the Fed has erred tremendously during Ben's first term, both by supporting the bailouts and by expanding the Fed's actions beyond standard open market operations (e.g., buying up mortgage-backed securities). In my utopia, the Fed would not exist at all.
But we do not live in that utopia (yet). If Ben is not confirmed, we will stil have a Fed, and someone will be chairman. So the following points argue in favor of confirmation:
1. Hindsight is easier than foresight. The Fed had to act in real time. Many of Ben's current critics supported the Fed's actions as they occurred, even if they disagree now. And macroeconomists as a group believe Ben has done a good job.
2. Ben took the actions he did because he was convinced they were right for the economy. He may have been mistaken, but his intentions were always benevolent.
3. Most distinguished candidates to replace him will be horrified if he is not confirmed. So, his successor may be far less talented.
4. Ben is being made a scapegoat (perhaps by politicos within the White House), to soothe populist rage.
5. Stability in policy is important, even if that policy is not perfect. If Ben is not confirmed, uncertainty about monetary policy increases dramatically.
So I endorse Ben for a second term, without reservation.