Least popular president meets one of the most popular presidents-elect.
By on Nov 10th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Least popular president meets one of the most popular presidents-elect.
Today, President-elect Barack Obama is scheduled to meet with President Bush at the White House. The New York Times notes that the visit will be both “historic” and “perhaps awkward,” since Obama consistently criticized Bush on the campaign trail. A new Gallup analysis also finds that the meeting will be “a remarkable contrast between one of the least popular two-term presidents in modern times at the close of his administration, and one of the most popular candidates to win the presidency“:
UpdateA new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey finds that 76 percent of Americans disapprove of how Bush is handling his job, "an all-time high in CNN polling and in Gallup polling dating back to World War II." Bush is now more unpopular that Richard Nixon when he resigned from office after Watergate (66 percent disapproval). He also beats the previous record holder, Harry Truman, who had a 67 percent disapproval rating in January 1952.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
55 Responses to “Least popular president meets one of the most popular presidents-elect.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Franken
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Krauthammer
Kyl
LGBT
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Eh. Those dastardly libs have hoodwinked everyone!!!
November 10th, 2008 at 12:16 pmI hope nobody thinks we're supposed to feel sorry for Chimpy having such a low approval rating. Afterall, he brought it all on himself. I'm guessing that if Chimpy ever gets someone to write his memoirs for him he will complain that not enough 'Merikuns watched the Fixed News Channel so that was why his approval rating was so abysmal.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:19 pmBut, but, but, but, the Congress has low approval ratings too!!!
November 10th, 2008 at 12:20 pm~reich-wing talking point 124,705,929
The New York Times notes that the visit will be both “historic” and “perhaps awkward,” since Obama consistently criticized Bush on the campaign trail.
Are they saying it will be historic - and awkward - because Bush is finally meeting someone who criticized him?
Serious point this, someone getting inside the Bush bubble is pretty rare.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:22 pmOh no, not the libs, Leftside Annie. We couldn't possibly do anything like that, we're too 'pussy' and 'weak.' Just ask Dr. Hussein Matt.
All the liberals are trying to do is pull the rug out from under Obama before he gets in there. We're the real danger, not the Republicans or neocons.
I'm willing to give the man a chance overall, and he'll certainly be better than Bush, but that doesn't say much now does it?
The Mandate Obama received, made clear in his electoral vote AND popular vote landslides, is not a Mandate for Obama. It is a Mandate for him to do what he promised us, not a mandate to do whatever he wants to with it. We shall see.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:22 pmWow. 70% approval. And, he didn't need 3000 people to be killed in an attack to achieve it. Very impressive.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:23 pmOUCH!
god, bush has to feel like a complete tool.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:23 pmlibrul traitor, you're still having a hissy fit. That's too bad. Take a deep breath, wimp.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:24 pmAdding to the 'mandate' comment:
At least in Obama's administration the word Mandate will no longer mean that Jeff Gannon is on his way over to 1600 Pennsylvania...
November 10th, 2008 at 12:24 pmliberal traitor Says:
I’m willing to give the man a chance overall...
you don't have a choice.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:24 pmMaureen Dowd talks about how personal demons are magnified inside the White House. People clearly know Bush's demons and don't like them. He turned the White House into a heavy handed CorporaWhorehouse.
If MoDo's prediction is true, Barack Obama's demons will appear over time. Enjoy the honeymoon or hope Maureen's theory is wrong, and needs revision.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:25 pmDoes this mean we can now slam Bush for his ties with ACORN, Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, for pallin' around with a guy who's been pallin' around with terrissts?
November 10th, 2008 at 12:27 pmWhatever the outcome of this meeting, I can't wait to see how they cover it on tonight's Daily Show...
November 10th, 2008 at 12:28 pmDeep thought: Should McCain be jealous that Obama will appear alongside Bush?
November 10th, 2008 at 12:30 pmAww, aint it sweet. Obama hasn't even been inaugurated yet and folks here want to condemn him to failure.
Please......think about the last 8 years before making such asinine statements.
Your crystal balls are fuzzy.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:30 pmAnd you're still confusing me wanting to question the things that Obama is already doing that worry me, with having a hissy fit.
That's too bad.
I've always respected you and enjoyed your posts up until today when you decided to insult me and anyone else associated with the word 'liberal' when we're supposed to be on the same side.
Why did you do this? Because I'm not marching in lockstep behind every decision Obama makes just because he's a Democratic president.
Give me a break, Matt. I also see that you're going to start misspelling my moniker, that's cute. I'm still addressing you as either Matt, Dr. Hussein Matt, or what have you. I called you a d0uche-bag earlier in response to you calling me 'pussy' 'wimp' 'loser' 'weak arse' etc etc. I apologize for my insult to you, let's see if you can do the same.
And for the record I reiterate:
THIS IS AMERICA. I AM ALLOWED TO QUESTION MY PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS. I AM ALLOWED NOT TO LIKE THEM, AND TO STATE THAT FACT OPENLY. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, TOO FREAKIN' BAD, YOU'RE AS BAD AS ANY GOOSESTEPPING NEOCON IN THAT CASE.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:32 pmNow on CNN:
"Bush popularity rating is lowest in history"
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/10/bush.transition.poll/index.html
November 10th, 2008 at 12:34 pmI wonder if Obama is going to ask Bush the War Criminal what color he would like his jail cell.
Does Bush have his Plane Tickets to Paraguay yet?
November 10th, 2008 at 12:35 pmTHIS IS AMERICA. I AM ALLOWED TO QUESTION MY PRESIDENT’S ACTIONS. I AM ALLOWED NOT TO LIKE THEM, AND TO STATE THAT FACT OPENLY. IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT, TOO FREAKIN’ BAD, YOU’RE AS BAD AS ANY GOOSESTEPPING NEOCON IN THAT CASE.
Shouldn't you wait until he actually is your President to question his actions as President?
November 10th, 2008 at 12:37 pmThere will be four years in which you will be able to openly state your dislike of his actions- what's the hurry?
Or is this a new Pre-emptive criticism strategy? Pre-emption worked so well for dealing with terrorism, after all...
Who's condemning Obama to failure?
I am thinking about the last eight years of people blindly following a man no matter what he did.
I am NOT comparing Obama to Bush. I am simply saying Obama wouldn't have to do much to be better. I hope he does more, I think he will. I STILL don't like the Emmanuel choice. I STILL don't like some of the things (not being covered HERE I might add) that I've seen come out of Obama's camp since being elected.
On Election night, I felt a joy I have never known honestly. It seemed the beginning of a new day.
But unless we question, debate, and investigate even those politicians we support rather than just sitting back and "Hoping" they do right, then all the charges against the Democratic community that said we revered Obama as Messianic, that he was "THE ONE" and that he would magically fix all our problems and give everyone a unicorn will have a little too much validity for my taste.
Obama is not perfect.
I voted for him because he was the best of the choices we had.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:38 pmDang, chimpy loses both ways.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:38 pmWhat a nutsack.
liberal traitor: "And you’re still confusing me wanting to question the things that Obama is already doing that worry me, with having a hissy fit."
I think the general idea is that Obama hasn't even taken office yet. Why don't we give him a few weeks of actually being President and then start criticizing. Just a thought. I've actually never seen a president criticized by his supporters BEFORE HE EVEN TAKES OFFICE before.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:39 pmbelac:
You people are getting ridiculous now.
I question a decision Obama made and now my question and criticism gets compared to invading Iraq?
Jesus Tapdancing Kee-Rist on a Cracker. What happened around here?
November 10th, 2008 at 12:39 pmFair enough, he's not in office yet. But I still question the Emmanuel pick.
I’ve actually never seen a president criticized by his supporters BEFORE HE EVEN TAKES OFFICE before.
Maybe that's part of the problem with this country?
Anyway, I was just compared to the invasion of Iraq for questioning Obama.
I just don't know what to say anymore.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:42 pmI think you said Rahm was a bad choice... then you said you and the good Rabbi would have to rebuild the Progressive Agenda... all I've said is take a breather, LT!
November 10th, 2008 at 12:44 pmThere's no reason to get this worked up this early in Obama's Administration... since there is no Obama Administration yet- there's still a President who needs your attention and vigilance, LT... I think your efforts would be better served there.
I hope that at this meeting, Dubya will know that "Obama" isn't the guy's first name.
I also hope he's gotten over his thing with hand sanitizers.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:44 pmI don't know liberal. We were just patient for 8 years against our will.
He probably won't tell the congress to do as he says or he will declare martial law though as bush did.
He probably won't be torturing or destroying our economy as bush did.
he probably won't be ignighting the flames of hate and bigotry as palen and mccain did.
Please tell us what horrifies you about Obama compared to the current administration.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:46 pmbelac Says:
Shouldn’t you wait until he actually is your President to question his actions as President?
There will be four years in which you will be able to openly state your dislike of his actions- what’s the hurry?
Or is this a new Pre-emptive criticism strategy? Pre-emption worked so well for dealing with terrorism, after all…
November 10th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
____________
Interesting comparison. "Pre-emptive criticism" is something we could actually have used MORE of in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, when instead we got lockstep marching from the mainstream media and most of the pundits.
I'd argue that now, this pre-inauguration period, is a very good time to comment on, and criticize when necessary, the decisions made the new President. Just because Obama has "-Elect" in his title doesn't mean he isn't making Presidential decisions right now: choosing his senior White House staff, selecting cabinet nominees, hammering out an agenda for the first 100 days.
If we think the new Administration is making a mistake, isn't it better to warn them ahead of time, rather than "wait and see?"
November 10th, 2008 at 12:51 pmThis statement, aside from the paragraph in CAPS obviously written in anger is what mostly concerns me. How can you believe this?
November 10th, 2008 at 12:52 pmYes for some reasons. He's good for others. I was immediately attacked just for even that little bit of criticism.
What the F are you talking about?
No, all you've done is compare me criticizing a decision of MY PRESIDENT to the US preemptively invading Iraq on false pretenses.
I wasn't worked up until a poster here called me 'wimp' 'loser' 'weak' etc etc and told me to get the hell out of the Democratic party because they don't need me.
I wasn't worked up until all the bs I have defended other posters against such as the "you've drunk the Obama koolaid" "the one" "the messiah" all those stupid right-wing memes are starting to look true, because what happened when I questioned something Obama did? I am attacked. This is ludicrous.
WRONG. There's still a country that needs my attention and vigilance. Obama is just a man. An imperfect one.
I have hope that he will do a great many good things, but I'm not going to just sit back and say nothing when he does something I think is wrong or a bad idea.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:52 pmThe naysayers repeated Sen. Obama couldn't win by a landslide and he did. They said it was impossible for Obama to win over 5 points but he did.
chimpy's rating is as close to zero as it gets.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:53 pmDamn - It's gonna be nice to have a president who can form coherent sentences.
America's BAraCK
November 10th, 2008 at 12:54 pmBush tried to pass a Bill that would pardon all involved in the kidnapping, tourture and murder of innocent men/woman/children that the US held. Now Bush also included himself in that Bill to be pardon it didn't get to the flood. Time is running out and Bush is now going to ask Obama to pardon him for his crimes and Nixon asked Ford. Like any criminal Bush is looking out for himself as he will pardon all his appointees and staff when he leaves office. The Bill was called War Crime Detainees HR 6094.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:56 pmFred Says:
This statement, aside from the paragraph in CAPS obviously written in anger is what mostly concerns me. How can you believe this?
November 10th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
________
Well, considering how low the utterly incompetent Bush Administration has set the success/failure bar, it won't take much to be "better than Bush." That's all LT was saying, I believe.
Shit, just being able to pronounce "nuclear" correctly is leaps and bounds better than the last eight years.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:59 pmcurfew, that is funny that no company wanted to publish his bs.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:59 pmI wonder what the National Enquirer offered him?
If we think the new Administration is making a mistake, isn’t it better to warn them ahead of time, rather than “wait and see?”
Certainly, but I think this level of concern is unwarranted and ridiculous... he appointed Emmanuel as chief-of-staff- he didn't decide to invade another country illegally.
I believe one of those decisions demands intense scrutiny and examination and opposition, I think we can let the other slide for the moment with a 'wait and see' attitude.
I wasn't comparing LT's criticism to the invasion of Iraq- I was comparing LT's preconceived notions about Emmanuel driving LT's hysteria with little or no facts to base that hysteria on to the preconceived notions about Iraq driving that hysteria with little or no basis in fact...
November 10th, 2008 at 1:00 pmFred, my response to you in two parts:
I am not, as you call it, "horrified" by anything Obama has done thus far (other than his vote for the FISA bill. That was horrifying. I still voted for the man).
I am worried, and I will not be quiet when he does something I don't like.
Rahm Emmanuel is a bad CoS choice for many reasons. The only good reason to pick him is he is aggressive and placates the Blue Dogs in the Democratic party...and the Israel Whores...and the Corporate Whores...see where I'm going with this?
Obama already went back on his supposed support for decriminalization of marijuana.
He removed his support of Net Neutrality from his web page...then when he was criticized for it BY HIS SUPPORTERS it was put back up on change.gov. Hooray! Questioning your leaders works!
The all caps statements were written in anger. Because so far today I have been called names, told to leave the party I have always belonged to, and told to keep quiet, and been compared to the preemptive invasion of Iraq for simply questioning a few things about Obama.
And my statement about "Obama is better than Bush, doesn't say much" was clarified later. I understand it warranted clarification.
I was saying Obama would not have to do anything at all in 8 years and he'd still be better than Bush. My focus is on how much better he can be. He can be a GREAT President, and criticism, debate, questioning, and pressure from his supporters will help make that happen.
I was just as patient, just as much against my will, as any of you these last 8 years.
No, Obama will not treat Congress like a whipped dog or declare martial law to get his way. I am glad of that.
No, Obama would torture or destroy our economy like Bush did. I am glad of that.
He won’t be ignighting the flames of hate and bigotry as palen and mccain did via his actions. Just by being who he is he inflames the bigotry of the already bigoted. This is not his fault of course. This is one thing we all should be vigilant against. I am extremely happy that America finally elected a non-white President. It's about damn time.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:02 pmFolks, time to take a breath. I believe we all have the same goals but are still wound up around the election. The RedState types are eating their own, let's not follow their lead. It has been proven to be the wrong path.
PAX
November 10th, 2008 at 1:04 pmJackie Says:
You have been debunked for this misinformation on another thread. The bill you mentioned does no such thing.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:04 pm.
For some, the honeymoon is not over. Telling these people that there is laundry to have to face, clean and air is not welcome.
For others, the hangover is killing them and need fresh air and a cold shower.
.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:07 pmLiberalVoter Says:
I wholeheartedly agree... peace!
and I apologize to you Liberal Traitor, I never meant to imply that you were contemplating the invasion of a sovereign nation, you're welcome in the party as far as I'm concerned-- just please stop telling me not to dance.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:07 pmbelac Says:
I wasn’t comparing LT’s criticism to the invasion of Iraq- I was comparing LT’s preconceived notions about Emmanuel driving LT’s hysteria with little or no facts to base that hysteria on to the preconceived notions about Iraq driving that hysteria with little or no basis in fact…
November 10th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
_______
Fair enough, but I don't think the concerns about Rahm Emmanuel are all that farfetched. There has been a bit of concern raised among Middle Eastern scholars and peace activists over the selection of one of the most pro-Israel members of Congress as Chief of Staff. That's legitimate. There's also concern that Emanuel's connections to the hedge fund and securities industry may influence who he allows to have access to the new President.
That having been said, I'm also optimistic - the plain fact is that Emanuel will work for Obama, not the other way around. This President will set the policy, and if his aim is to surround himself with people who don't necessarily agree with him on every issue, I salute the decision. We've had too much administration by Yes-men.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:12 pmliberal traitor Says:
I've always respected your opinion as expressed in your posts here and I still do.
I also understand what you want to do and agree that now that we have regained our footing that we should try to keep the boat on an even keel.
This is the perfect place for discussions like this.
I also think there is still a lot of pent up emotion guiding many liberals actions these days.
We have to remain pragmatic and work within the system that we have. We can also work to change that system if we deem it ineffective.....
You obviously have very strong feelings about Rahm's selection.
We all know the things you mention. This is not new to most of us. However Obama has a challenge ahead of him and we selected him because we trust his judgement over all others that we could have picked from.
We will also have to allow him some mistakes, it seems inevitable that there will be some.
Personally, I'm taking a longer view of events. You or I cannot micromanage this new administration.
Let's see how he handles a few things before we throw in the towel.
As with any leader, everyone is not going to like everything that they do, ever.....remember JFK's quote?
I personally like the selection of Rahm, it shows that Obama plans to take a firm hold on events that he can control. Rahm is included in that catagory of what Obama must control.
Just my thoughts.
Peace
November 10th, 2008 at 1:13 pmbelac Says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we think the new Administration is making a mistake, isn’t it better to warn them ahead of time, rather than “wait and see?”
Certainly, but I think this level of concern is unwarranted and ridiculous… he appointed Emmanuel as chief-of-staff- he didn’t decide to invade another country illegally.
I believe one of those decisions demands intense scrutiny and examination and opposition, I think we can let the other slide for the moment with a ‘wait and see’ attitude.
I wasn’t comparing LT’s criticism to the invasion of Iraq-
Oh really?
I was comparing LT’s preconceived notions about Emmanuel driving LT’s hysteria with little or no facts to base that hysteria on to the preconceived notions about Iraq driving that hysteria with little or no basis in fact…
So, how are you not comparing my criticism...
Ugh, whatever, I give up.
I'm not hysterical. I'm pi$$ed off rightly that a bunch of so-called fellow Progressives have attacked me today for questioning my President-elect's decisions.
I have plenty of reasons to dislike Emmanuel and to therefore questions Obama's decision to pick him. Of course, those reasons have been ignored.
From Foreign Policy.com:
The most infamous Rahmbo story of them all is the one that begins with the dinner the night after Bill Clinton was elected in 1992. Among those present at the dinner table was ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos, who watched while an overwrought and clearly exhausted Emanuel began ranting at a long list of Clinton "enemies." As he shouted each name, he stabbed the table with his steak knife: "Nat Landow! Dead! Cliff Jackson! Dead!" Apparently, others joined in.
Table stabbing with a knife. Great...
That one is trivial, admittedly, so how about this:
1. He lobbied other Democrats to support the Surge
2. He lobbied other Democrats to back off on Cheney Impeachment support
3. He actively worked AGAINST anti-war Democrats in FAVOR of pro-war Democrats in the '06 elections
4. Lips are FIRMLY planted on AIPAC's pucker
5. Was on Freddie Mac's board during book cooking...
Anyway...back to your regularly scheduled programming.
I still support Barack Obama, but I do not like the Emmanuel pick.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:15 pmThe brilliant Obamas , getting to meet the mindless in the Shrubs ; Barack and Michelle must be all tingly............
November 10th, 2008 at 1:16 pmOk, glad this is all over.
Work through the system...is there any other way really?
This whole thing started just because I stated my displeasure with the Emmanuel pick.
It worries me, it does not mean I've already given up on Obama's presidency.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:17 pmstateofthedivision Says:
Maureen Dowd talks about how personal demons are magnified inside the White House. People clearly know Bush’s demons and don’t like them. He turned the White House into a heavy handed CorporaWhorehouse.
If you start taking Maureen Dowd's commentary seriously, you need a cold shower and a stiff drink.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:19 pmDumb_Hussein_Fox Says:
The New York Times notes that the visit will be both "historic" and "perhaps awkward," since Obama consistently criticized Bush on the campaign trail.
Are they saying it will be historic - and awkward - because Bush is finally meeting someone who criticized him?
Serious point this, someone getting inside the Bush bubble is pretty rare.
What bush bubble? mcchimpy dissed him worse and that's his buddy.
I hope President-Elect Obama brings his own hand sanitizer.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:29 pmliberal traitor Says:
Actually I have concerns also, but not about Emmanuel as chief of staff. As Chief of Staff he will have to follow Obama's agenda, not Emanuel's.
My concern was and still is the flip-flop Obama did on the FISA/Telco Immunity bill, and that still concerns me. My hopes are that the Constitution and Bill of Rights will be preserved and the erosion of our rights will be reversed.
Despite my concerns over that, I donated to Obama, supported him and voted for him, because we needed to get the Republicans out.
I will be watching the new president also, and I have no expectations that I will like everything he will do, just as I did not like everything Clinton did. But lets let him get sworn in before we get too critical. He is not the President yet.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:55 pmLiberal Traitor, some of the posters are confusing you with me. I expressed concerns about Rahm and TP's reporting. They're regurgitating some of my points, even those shared in jest.
Other websites dedicated a whole webpage with multiple stories on Obama's new Chief of Staff. TP published one sentence?
I quit sharing my concerns about Rahm Rahm Rahm Rahm Rahm Iran on this progressive website.
I do know leaders like Rahm drive in fear, which distorts any organization. It causes lying and cheating to give the boss what they want. It remains to be seen how Obama and Emanuel will mix.
November 10th, 2008 at 2:02 pmWhat I am hoping is that Obama doesn't make a deal with Bush. I can see him telling Bush "if you don't cause any more trouble before you leave office, I won't direct my Justice Department to charge you with any crimes".
I hope he doesn't do that. On the other hand, I'm kind of glad, now, that Congress didn't push Karl Rove into perjuring himself so he can go to jail. If they had, Bush just would have pardoned him. This way we can go after the Bush Crime Family for all the crimes they have committed and there won't be anyone there to pardon them, meaning THEY WILL GO TO JAIL!
November 10th, 2008 at 2:02 pmMaureen's experience is but a variation of the saying:
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Your vote is for that theory to not hold. That's mine as well.
November 10th, 2008 at 2:06 pmThe head line should be 'The unelected president meets with the Elected President'!
November 10th, 2008 at 2:17 pmFred #39
Blogging is fun but facts don't change if you go to the Govenment Website for Bills passed or being reviewed now. As for my statement I posted the information came from the Govement Website which all people can view. I know some find it hard to believe but this happen. Bush knows how to fool Americans just as with the bailout. As Americans read headlines of the bailout, Paulson and Bernanke were busy handing out the money to the chosen few with no accountablity. Just as you missed the War Crimes Detainee Bill we all miss the bailout being robbed. Even AIG got another 40 billion dollars after wasting most of the money they have already been given. So like President Obama ssid we have to pay more attention to what our Govenment is doing.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:11 pmRahm dodged George Stephanopolis' question on tax increases for people making over $250,000 a year. He did it not once, but twice Sunday's This Week.
A Congressman just said on CNBC that tax increases for high wage earners would likely not come into play until 2010.
November 10th, 2008 at 7:55 pm