Did Obama push hard enough for Merrick Garland?

[jg10003]

It seem to me that Obama and the Democratic establishment could have waged a much stronger public campaign against GOP obstructionism. They had the moral high ground and could have really made the situation into a much bigger issue than it was. I suspect that the reason they didn't push harder is because they assumed Hillary would win. Obama and the Dems probably thought that after Hillary was elected the republicans would confirm Garland rather than risk Hillary nominating someone more liberal.

Moral of the story: Strike hard as soon as possible and don't take anything for granted.

[truebluegreen]

1. No.

IMO Obama hasn't pushed hard on much, including his signature effort.

[Cha]

11. What do you suggest he could have done to make

McConnell change his mind on Garland Merrick when he said he won't consider one until the next president chooses one?

President Obama would have done everything possible to get his SCOTUS nominee confirmed.

[Hoyt]

2. Exactly what would you have had Obama do that would have changed anything?

[jg10003]

6. Launched a major PR campaign designed to pressure the senate into at least hold a hearing

Bring it up at every opportunity. Put the republicans on the defensive. Make every GOP senator constantly explain why they are not even considering a nominee that senior GOP senator Orrin Hatch described as "a consensus nominee".

[Hoyt]

9. I seem to remember a lot of that, but GOPers didn't have to do anything. Guess he could

have threatened to shut down government and watch GOPers laugh.

[tritsofme]

3. McConnell was determined to deny President Obama his pick, he didn't care about the consequences.

What exactly do you propose that President Obama could have done differently?

[jg10003]

8. see above response

[tritsofme]

10. Obama did all that, the GOP didn't care.

One more week of fighting, one more speech, one more news conference, wasn't going to make Senate Republicans bend. Obama had no leverage against obstructionists that were determined to obstruct.

[SaschaHM]

4. When has having the moral high ground ever meant a damn thing to Republicans?

If they wouldn't allow any gun legislation hit the floor after 20+ elementary school kids were gunned down, next to nothing would force them to consider Garland. We're such a polarized and gerrymandered country that public pressure is starting to mean less and less. The Republicans figured that out a while ago. Maybe changes to Medicare/Social Security will have an electoral backlash. Maybe.

[Crunchy Frog]

5. No. Should have gone at it like the Republicans would if the shoe were on the other foot.

It's not like the President lacks a bully pulpit.

[tritsofme]

7. So he has some more news conferences, gives another speech.

They still refuse him a vote...Then what?

We're all frustrated, but it is dishonest to suggest Obama had an alternative at his disposal.

[Crunchy Frog]

16. No, he pounds it, and he has other Dems out pounding it, and pounding the 'pukes.

And it's not about persuading the 'pukes, it's about embarrassing them, and getting the public on his side. It's about making it, and the 'pukes obstruction, part of the national dialogue.

This has political value in and of itself, as a large part of politics is simply public perception. The 'pukes seem to "get" that, and act on it, and have used it to effectively advance their agenda, even when they were out of power.

This is something that Obama could have done. He is certainly not lacking in the ability to speak eloquently and persuasively. The Dems seem to have simply not figured out the importance of public perception when it comes to pushing your agenda, and have let the 'pukes largely monopolize the public discourse.

They had better get this figured out, because for the next 2-4 years (at least), their voices are going to be the only thing they really have to fight with.

So, yes. Lots and lots of news conferences and speeches, utilizing his gifts for speaking persuasively. It might not change the outcome, but it would change public perception, and show that the Dems are willing to fight for what's right.

[jg10003]

19. Well said

[Skittles]

20. if a Supreme Court justice dies with 1/4 of a presidential term left

they'd be appointing someone in a heartbeat

Obama should have hammered them night and day but he's just so....NICE

[oldtime dfl_er]

12. Since when did Repugs

care about "moral high ground"? They are the swamp.

I am really sick of criticisms of Obama for not "trying hard enough". My heart is bleeding for him right now and I just cannot bear this kind of second guessing. Perhaps it was WE THE PEOPLE who didn't "push hard enough".

[Cha]

13. Excellent post, oldtime dfl_er.. REC!

[oldtime dfl_er]

22. Thank you

for "getting it".

[Cha]

25. Oh, I get it alright.. Thank you for the same.

[Lil Missy]

14. Some people just cannot be pleased

[JI7]

15. morals don't matter to them

[HoneyBadger]

17. If Hillary had won

The pick would not have been Garland, it would have been her pick and that is exactly how she would have wanted it.

[Skittles]

18. no

he didn't push hard enough for too many things

[BzaDem]

21. The court tends to motivate Republican voters more than Democratic voters, unfortunately.

Republicans realized decades ago that controlling the court was a way to achieve entrenched generational changes in policy that they could not get through convincing the the public and winning elections. While many Democrats realize how important the court is to blocking such efforts, there are also many who take it for granted. I imagine a large number of wavering voters who eventually voted for Trump did so because of the Supreme Court.

[Raine]

23. NO, he didn't!

[Cha]

24. Yes, President Obama did everything he could.

[Jimbo101]

26. My Conspiracy Theory

I believe that TPP for Merrick was the deal. - quid pro quo

When it became apparent that TPP was dead - so was Advice and Consent for Merrick.

(again - my own personal conspiracy theory)