Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jg10003

(1,029 posts)
Tue Jan 3, 2017, 12:38 AM Jan 2017

Did Obama push hard enough for Merrick Garland?

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.

26 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Did Obama push hard enough for Merrick Garland? (Original Post) jg10003 Jan 2017 OP
No. truebluegreen Jan 2017 #1
What do you suggest he could have done to make Cha Jan 2017 #11
Exactly what would you have had Obama do that would have changed anything? Hoyt Jan 2017 #2
Launched a major PR campaign designed to pressure the senate into at least hold a hearing jg10003 Jan 2017 #6
I seem to remember a lot of that, but GOPers didn't have to do anything. Guess he could Hoyt Jan 2017 #9
McConnell was determined to deny President Obama his pick, he didn't care about the consequences. tritsofme Jan 2017 #3
see above response jg10003 Jan 2017 #8
Obama did all that, the GOP didn't care. tritsofme Jan 2017 #10
When has having the moral high ground ever meant a damn thing to Republicans? SaschaHM Jan 2017 #4
No. Should have gone at it like the Republicans would if the shoe were on the other foot. Crunchy Frog Jan 2017 #5
So he has some more news conferences, gives another speech. tritsofme Jan 2017 #7
No, he pounds it, and he has other Dems out pounding it, and pounding the 'pukes. Crunchy Frog Jan 2017 #16
Well said jg10003 Jan 2017 #19
if a Supreme Court justice dies with 1/4 of a presidential term left Skittles Jan 2017 #20
Since when did Repugs oldtime dfl_er Jan 2017 #12
Excellent post, oldtime dfl_er.. REC! Cha Jan 2017 #13
Thank you oldtime dfl_er Jan 2017 #22
Oh, I get it alright.. Thank you for the same. Cha Jan 2017 #25
Some people just cannot be pleased Lil Missy Jan 2017 #14
morals don't matter to them JI7 Jan 2017 #15
If Hillary had won HoneyBadger Jan 2017 #17
no Skittles Jan 2017 #18
The court tends to motivate Republican voters more than Democratic voters, unfortunately. BzaDem Jan 2017 #21
NO, he didn't! Raine Jan 2017 #23
Yes, President Obama did everything he could. Cha Jan 2017 #24
My Conspiracy Theory Jimbo101 Jan 2017 #26

Cha

(305,580 posts)
11. What do you suggest he could have done to make
Tue Jan 3, 2017, 01:15 AM
Jan 2017

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.

jg10003

(1,029 posts)
6. Launched a major PR campaign designed to pressure the senate into at least hold a hearing
Tue Jan 3, 2017, 01:04 AM
Jan 2017

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

(54,770 posts)
9. I seem to remember a lot of that, but GOPers didn't have to do anything. Guess he could
Tue Jan 3, 2017, 01:09 AM
Jan 2017

have threatened to shut down government and watch GOPers laugh.

tritsofme

(18,621 posts)
3. McConnell was determined to deny President Obama his pick, he didn't care about the consequences.
Tue Jan 3, 2017, 12:53 AM
Jan 2017

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

tritsofme

(18,621 posts)
10. Obama did all that, the GOP didn't care.
Tue Jan 3, 2017, 01:12 AM
Jan 2017

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

(2,897 posts)
4. When has having the moral high ground ever meant a damn thing to Republicans?
Tue Jan 3, 2017, 12:57 AM
Jan 2017

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

(27,012 posts)
5. No. Should have gone at it like the Republicans would if the shoe were on the other foot.
Tue Jan 3, 2017, 12:58 AM
Jan 2017

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

tritsofme

(18,621 posts)
7. So he has some more news conferences, gives another speech.
Tue Jan 3, 2017, 01:05 AM
Jan 2017

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

(27,012 posts)
16. No, he pounds it, and he has other Dems out pounding it, and pounding the 'pukes.
Tue Jan 3, 2017, 02:07 AM
Jan 2017

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.

Skittles

(159,642 posts)
20. if a Supreme Court justice dies with 1/4 of a presidential term left
Tue Jan 3, 2017, 02:17 AM
Jan 2017

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

(6,991 posts)
12. Since when did Repugs
Tue Jan 3, 2017, 01:36 AM
Jan 2017

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".

 

HoneyBadger

(2,297 posts)
17. If Hillary had won
Tue Jan 3, 2017, 02:10 AM
Jan 2017

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

BzaDem

(11,142 posts)
21. The court tends to motivate Republican voters more than Democratic voters, unfortunately.
Tue Jan 3, 2017, 02:19 AM
Jan 2017

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.

Jimbo101

(776 posts)
26. My Conspiracy Theory
Tue Jan 3, 2017, 03:32 AM
Jan 2017

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)

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Did Obama push hard enoug...