The Senate raised a 60 vote hurdle that causes the President to limit his short list. I don't care what label you slap on it, cpaitulation, acquiesence, giving up, weak, timid, political reality, "a good thing" (to parphrase Martha Stewert). The President voluntarily limited his list, and voluntarily engaged in "stealth." He has control over those actions, and they were affected by a manifestly unacceptable "hurdle" to confirmation.
Is that attack more fair? Or is it unfair? Is it just the label "acquiesce" that bugs you?
You don't seem to much mind that the Senate has the President by the short hairs.
What I don't mind is that there is Seperation of Powers as demanded by the Founders. Sometimes that causes consternation and frustration but to blame that on the President is both unfair and invalid.
Senators are not constrained by any Constitutional mechanism to do what the President wants, any President. And it never has. Lincoln faced many problems due to the Senate's methods and beliefs. They all have at one time or the other.
The President is not a Dictator.