Obama Ahead On Appointments?

Came at this at Surber via Tigerhawk - also picked up by Instapundit. TH posed the question so I went looking. Also - The Independent may have cleaned up the article:

The Cabinet Secretary's comments were removed from the website after the Government protested.

But regarding this:

After 51 days in office, Barack Obama has appointed only 73 people to 1,200 jobs that require Senate confirmation.

If they require Senate approval, they are important jobs.

TH:

Can one of our brainy readers put some context around that? We know, for example, that the George W. Bush administration was incompetent, because so many people have told us so. Well, how many appointments had it made at this stage? I'm too tired to do the work, but one of you night owls should be able to nail that amusing comparison with a little thoughtful searching.

Maybe there's more to this but based on a First 100 days scenario, Obama might not be doing too badly.

                  Presidental Appointments: Nominations Submitted and Confirmed

George W. Bush                             April 30          May 24
Total Nominations Submitted              149            210 
Confirmed                                       35               70

Bill Clinton
Total Nominations Submitted              173             200 
Confirmed                                        49              100

George Bush (41) 
Total Nominations Submitted               96             146 
Confirmed                                        49               97

Ronald Reagan
Total Nominations Submitted              154             197 
Confirmed                                        83              137 

Comments

[mary]

I don't recall an administration where, when asked to serve, people have declined.

[JaneJane]

The other administrations did not have such a helpful transition - WHAT DID THEY DO FOR ALMOST THREE MONTHS?

[AWW]

Quantity vs Quality. Obama may be on the same pace as he has nominated all the 3rd Assistant UnderSecretaries for the Interior department or something like that.

The most important appts right now are Treasury and Commerce given the economy. Treasury has a lightweight at the top and is grossly understaffed by all accounts. And Commerce still doesn't have its head due to poor nominating.

Jane has a good point - the Bush admin (unlike Clinton) bent over backwards to help the transition (even the MSM acknowledged this) but the O administration has badly stumbled out of the gate.

[RAH]

The better comparison is confirmations in a compliant Congress. Reagan had a Democratic controlled Congress, but a lot of Blue Dog support. Clinton also had a Democratic controlled Congress with a lot of GOP resistance. G Bush 41 had a more even Congress with a lot of contentioon from Democrats, but not so effective. GW #43 had a GOP congress but that allowed Democrats with key leadeship to contest nomination, very serious resistance.

Obama has a Democratic Congress, very compliant and weak GOP resistance. He should have been able to nominate many lower level positions and get them through easily. His nominating staff has problems finding good candidates that fit their policies and are competent and experienced. That maybe because more GOP leaning types are in banking and finance versus Democrats who are in law, media, communication and education.

Depends on what the priorities for hiring are whether they are idealogues that are good Obama supporters or good compentent people maybe not loyal to the new regime.

What does the Obama admin want? His close WH staff has been quick to staff WH advisors and leave Cabinet position undermanned and deprived of authority.

It seemed tha Obama WH was centralizing all power within the WH and not allowing the normal Cabinets handle the executive departments with empowerment. That is different from the Clinton model that filled the Departments with as many low level staff that were aligned politically even in basic staff.

[PA]

Just a thought, but maybe if you're unprepared to lead, you keep a few of the last crew on for a few months? To like answer the phone...

[Charlie (Colorado)]

What happens when you take out carry-overs from the Bush Administration?

[Jack is Back]

Unh, didn't the Bush 43 administration have to wait for judicial opinions before they really started a transition that was buffeted at every turn by the Clintonistas? I know they had a hard time filling out the Senate confirmation forms for anyone whose named started with a W.

[PaulV]

It took a long time to confirm Ashcroft. The assistant AGs would have come later. The FBI director was confirmed 9/10. The Dem controlled Senate hindered W.

[Jamie]

I second quality vs. quantity... It strikes me as, well, unbelievable really, that after the press's unending pep rally for Obama during the campaign, they haven't found a way at least to make it look as if the appointment troubles have been caused by Bush. (You know what I mean - external opposition, not problems with the actual appointees.) To me that lack signifies real and significant problems with said actual appointees, and it makes me wonder how small the pool is from which the administration is drawing.

Or how variously unethical. Whichever.

I keep saying this: I disagree with Obama on virtually every policy point; I expected to spend two to four years railing impotently at the heavens, but I never expected to feel sorry for him. Not that I want those policies to succeed.

[seekeronos]

I *almost* feel sorry for Obie...

..but then I have a deeply ingrained sense of Schadenfreude.

[Noumenon]

Hey, awesome job looking that up for TigerHawk -- thanks a lot.