I do not do rant. But, following @TomPhilipson45's resgination from CEA, many people on #econtwitter have taken digs at the acting chair, Tyler Beck Goodspeed. Why? Because his PhD is not in economics and he has few citations. These are cheap shots!
So let me do what I do best which is to simply state some facts about Goodspeed. Obviously, you can dislike his work. You can dislike his politics. You can dislike who he decided to work for. However, his work as an academic is *off-limits* if you want to say he aint an econ
First, if that is your benchmark, get ready to cross out some big names from the field: Roth, Tullock, Kahneman, Ostrom, Herbert Simon, Nash, David Friedman.
Second, Goodspeed actually does a lot of econometric work combined with modelling. Two examples here suffice.
Take his work on the Irish famine. It is filled with models to predict behavior and then the intuition is formally tested. It started as an article in the Journal of Dev Econ but Goodspeed expanded it to discuss other theoretical considerations (like Malthusian pressures) 
Then, take his work on the history of economic thought. It is filled with models to highlight the divergence/similarities in macroeconomic thinking between Keynes and Hayek. Who but an economist would write history of econ thought with models to guide the conversation?
Third, yeah, the guy doesnt have a ton of publications and citations. But he didnt *apply* for the top job. He is a member of the CEA and, by the strange currents of life, ended up being the last man standing. Does that take anything away from his work?
I dare say that it does not. His work on economic history is good cliometrics, its good economic theory and the editors of journals like the Journal of Development Economics agreed.
Should he be permanent chair of the CEA? There may be better candidates with more experience out there with more proven records. But there are *no* stains on his reputation as a young scholar.
Cheap shots are not okay, regardless of the politics.
Rant over!
