The downside of Obama's focus on legislation

Blogger and political scientist Jonathan Bernstein has an excellent op-ed in the New York Times today about how President Obama has failed to push for his judicial nominees to be confirmed:

[T]he Democrats share a large part of the blame... For one thing, the president has named only nine judges for the 17 appeals court vacancies and only 41 judges for the 85 open district court seats. That’s significantly fewer nominations than Presidents George W. Bush or Bill Clinton had sent to Congress by this time in their first terms.

Moreover, unlike President Bush, President Obama has not used his bully pulpit to push for Senate confirmation of his nominations. Fairly or not, President Bush regularly lambasted Democrats for blocking an “up or down” vote on his nominees. Yet for all the recent chatter about a Republican-fueled judicial crisis, the president rarely speaks about the issue in public, and he didn’t mention it in his recent State of the Union address.

This behavior from Obama is consistent with his failure to push his nominees for the Federal Reserve, arguably the most important factor in determining the state of the economy in 2012 (and thus his re-election). As Bob Kuttner writes, "He has governed as if his sole task were legislative." I don't share Kuttner's Green Lantern-esque fantasies about Obama changing public opinion, but it's clear that the president has focused on legislation to the exclusion of his power as the leader of the executive branch. While there may have been good reasons to do so given the historic majorities Democrats enjoyed, Obama's neglect of his institutional powers is likely to have significant long-term consequences for both his presidency and his party.

Update 2/10 9:50 AM: John Sides responds by asking if there is any good reporting on this issue:

[H]ere's my question. Obama is a smart guy. His people are smart people. No doubt they are well aware of the benefits of stocking the courts with left-leaning judges and ditto for the Fed.

So, I'm curious. Does anyone know why they haven't done it? Is it really just that -- a la Robert Kuttner -- they prioritize legislation more? Is there some evidence that they actually don't care so much about the courts or the Fed? Is there some sort of organizational dysfunction within the White House? Is it the vetting? Or do they just not get it? What?

I've never seen any good reporting on this, although I easily could have missed something. Anyone is welcome to weigh in.

It is puzzling. I once suggested to a reporter that they cover this issue (to no avail). Are John and I missing coverage in this area? Or is it too boring for reporters?

Comments

[Rob]

I was struck by Bernstein's charmingly candid appeal to Democrats to act dishonorably:

When a nomination doesn’t have 60 votes and is therefore vulnerable to a filibuster, Democrats should remember the Republican tactics from the last decade and threaten unilateral action to eliminate judicial filibusters altogether. That’s unlikely to happen given last month’s agreement between Senators McConnell and Reid, but the Democrats should be willing to break their promise if the Republicans continue to block President Obama’s nominees. If experience is any guide, it would force the Republicans to back down. [emphasis added]

[David in Cal]

Lyndon Johnson said, "Jerry Ford is so dumb he can't fart and chew gum at the same time." The press, used to sanitizing LBJ's salty language, reported this as "Gerald Ford can't walk and chew gum at the same time."

Jonathan Bernstein's article says nothing about Obama's lack of judicial appointments being due to his alleged focus on legislation. Perhaps Brendan didn't want to be too critical of Mr. Obama, so he added an excuse. However, Presidents have large staffs. A President should be able to appoint lots of judges while also focusing on legislation. Brendan's excuse makes Obama sound like LBJ's mot about Gerald Ford.

[MartyB]

Interesting thoughts Brendan. Maybe it is too boring for reporters *because* it is too boring for the Obama admin.

President Obama brought very little administrative or executive experience to his current job and this lack of experience may be what hinders him in utilizing executive type decision-making skills, i.e. executive level appointments.

Could it be because he has never had much real affinity for executive work and became a legislator instead, so now in an executive position he simply pursues primarily the same type of actions he did before - those he is comfortable with?

Even in his legislator role, my understanding is that he rarely took leadership roles - note his famously long list of "voting present" in the IL legislature.

My growing impression, which your comments above seem to corroborate, is that President Obama may really be in over his head and having difficulty venturing too far out of his traditional comfort zones.

I know that is a common complaint from the conservative side, but after two years in office I am finding the argument more compelling than I did initially.