From an interview in the Dallas Morning News,  (The interview was conducted before the January FOMC blackout period began.)

In November, the Federal Reserve launched a $600 billion program to buy up longer-term U.S. Treasury debt, describing the plan as a way to promote a stronger pace of economic recovery.

Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher — a member of the Fed committee that formulates monetary policy — publicly opposed the plan and says he would have voted against it “had I had the vote.”

...

Plosser and Fisher are both seen as potential dissenters. Last week, Plosser said the Fed’s easy money approach could backfire by stoking inflation. Fisher told The News that he expects the bond-buying program to run its course, adding that he “would be wary of further accommodation.”

But dissent is not the goal, said Fisher, who dissented four times in 2008.

“I’m not itching to dissent,” he said.

I find this game of labeling people hawks and doves as being fun for the media, fun for the people who read the media. I don't find it useful in thinking about myself and the way I interact with the committee at all. I see myself as being somebody who's going to come in there and think about the theory and the evidence and make a judgment based on that.

The bar for dissent from the committee is going to be pretty high for me. But you know, in terms of the dialogue, I try to bring best available theory that I have, best available evidence and go from there.

...

I think that's very important for people to take away how the FOMC operates. Person X might be in there saying, 'Hmm, you know, you've been saying the pluses about this policy, but there are also some minuses we should be keeping in mind.' And that doesn't mean at the end of the day that that person, Person X, is going to vote against that policy. At the same time, if a voting member feels sufficiently strongly the policy is going in the wrong direction, that the committee is taking the wrong steps, they should, at that point, I agree, dissent and communicate those concerns publicly.

I believe that moving rates modestly off of zero, where they have been since December 2008, still represents highly accommodative monetary policy... More importantly, such action is necessary if we are to ensure a more stable economy.

A voting member of the interest-rate setting Federal Open Market Committee, Bullard said that it was better practice to persuade his colleagues rather than dissenting in FOMC votes. "The tradition is you argue vociferously, then rally around the chairman."

As reported by Dow Jones News

By itself,the current state of the economy warrants an accomodative monetary policy. However, as the economy continues to improve, risks emerge around the act of holidng rates low for an extended period.

I have dissented at the last two FOMC meetings specifically because I believe the "extended period" language is no longer warranted and I am concerned about the buildup of financial imbalances creating long-run risks.

My view was that we should change the language. I didn't object on the fact that interest rates were low at this time, but I think policymakers need to have the broadest options possible and the language that we use, that is very low for an extended period, was appropriate during the height of the crisis to assure that we were not going to make any changes, but now the economy is beginning to recover. It has been in recovery now for two quarters. We have to be thinking a little bit longer ahead and that's really what my admonition was.

In response to a question about his dissenting vote against the "extended period" clause in the January FOMC statement.

t’s really a question of, are we getting the bang for the buck? And clearly we’re not. The system was sputtering. And I began to feel that at 3.5%. After that, that’s when I dissented. Obviously for this next go-around, I have to watch to see if there is any change in signals. I’m just starting my briefings now for this.

What I’m hearing from CEOs is … the first quarter may have been positive, the second quarter’s probably not. There are real concerns about small businesses. Why? Because they’re not getting access to credit. … The credit system strikes me as being at the heart of the problem. And obviously the Fed has worked very hard on this. I’ve been in favor of every one of these [liquidity] initiatives. To me that’s where the priority is. To get the other to work the way we’re used to it working, it just strikes me that that has to get back to its efficient transmission mechanism.

I don’t know. You’re injecting your view into a roomful of views and depending on how you argue your viewpoint, and whether it has merit or not, and I think that’s very important. And so if it has merit, yes other people may listen. … The job of the 17 participants on the FOMC is to give an honest view. I honestly believe every one of my colleagues does that. Now, they might do it more forcefully in a certain area because they want to draw the attention of the committee to that area. A “negative feedback loop” – I won’t mention the name of the individual – on the economy or in my case inflationary pressures that are building. So you might emphasize saying more than the rest.

I think every single person on the committee basically is pursuing the truth. It’s the only place in government you can do it. People don’t dislike you for it. When [Richmond Fed President] Jeff Lacker was dissenting last year, we’d sit down at lunch afterward and pat him on the back – “Good try, pal” or “I hadn’t thought about that” or “That’s an interesting viewpoint.” … There’s no enmity. And it’s an honest intellectual debate. I don’t think anybody’s trying to sway anybody else. I think they’re trying to just get what they feel out on the table. And it’s up to the group to decide if it’s valid or not.

…I think the market should look at what the group decides. Even if you have dissents. It’s what was decided as a group and what signals are being sent.

When asked whether dissents have a cumulative effect

A less aggressive cut would have been more appropriate.

From Q&A as reported by Bloomberg News, referring to the March 18 0.75-point rate cut.

Furthermore, confusion about inflation objectives might make it harder for a committee of policymakers to decide on the appropriate course of monetary policy. When one member advocates a more accommodative policy stance than other members, it may not be clear whether that reflects a more negative outlook for the economy or a greater willingness to allow inflation to settle in or near the top of the comfort zone. Thus, the comfort zone approach might lead to greater confusion in policy deliberations and hence produce a less effective decisionmaking process.

There was a real serious concern about deflation. If you look at the notes of the Open Market Committee, the pressures were to go lower than 1 percent. There were no dissents. The only dissents were that we should go lower. People don't remember that period. [People thought there was] a threat to American stability because it looked as though we were replicating much of what Japan had done when it had fallen into a corrosive deflation.

Our forecast at the time said the chances were low, but the consequences to the country would have been so great that taking out insurance was by far the most sensible policy. I still believe that today.

On the decision to keep the federal funds rate at 1 percent from mid-2003 to mid-2004
 

Fisher said he disagreed with the view the Fed had been "pandering" to markets in cutting rates aggressively.

"We took the actions that were taken as a group in response to what we viewed as the prospective weakening of the US economy and were driven by economic considerations. In terms of the actions we take on the Fed Funds rate there are other tools we can use, for example the term auction facility addresses liquidity needs, and we will continue to develop our tool box," he said.

"My sense, from my personal perspective, is that 3.5% was a sufficient level. We have moved very quickly to that level. Going further to 3% might create a bit of a counter-reaction. In fact, it did create a bit of a counter reaction - that is long term rates went up including on jumbo mortgages and, of course, the dollar has weakened," he said [when asked about his January dissent].
...
"I trust in the wisdom of my colleagues."

As reported by Market News International

Being a dissenter -- it's not like in politics where it's some awful negative thing. All of us are responsible and take very seriously the duties of inflation management.

From press Q&A as reported by Market News International.

Lacker said he hasn't noticed a change in the way dissents are viewed under Bernanke, compared to previous Fed chief Alan Greenspan. "I haven't sensed any shift in that regard," Lacker said.

Because the Fed faces significant inflation risks as well as economic weakness, FOMC members may have differences of opinion about the best policy response. Lacker said the Fed's discussions tackle those considerations responsibly. "A lot of people have remarked he [Bernanke] has a very collegial style. I think the committee's quite cohesive in its functioning," Lacker said.

From press Q&A, as reported by Market News International

Presidents have tended to dissent a little more than Governors.  The greater number of dissents by presidents might reflect a number of factors.  For one, presidents have their own staffs, which can help support alternative views in preparing for a meeting.  Board members share a common staff with the Chairman, and, being in the same building, perhaps have a greater opportunity to influence and be influenced by the Chairman.  In this regard, Bank presidents may act like "outsiders" more readily than Board members.  At the same time, Bank presidents tend to be longer tenured than Board members, and can contribute the institutional memory one might expect from "insiders" when Board membership turns over rapidly.