Since you are begging, I will respond.

First, the Newsweek poll dated 1/27/07 showed Bush at 30% and I did not see anything lower than that. I know 30% is bad enough, and the parody wouldn't work without 28%; but please let me know which poll has the President at 28%.

Second, I am critical of much that the Bush administration has done - particularly the prescription drug bill and other domestic programs. But I mostly support the War on Terror. And, in the last 2 elections, I did not perceive that the Democrats had a stronger alternative. I still don't.

He got his poll from Dummycrat Underlings, of course, where else? Even Newsweak is never able to cook its figures that badly! Or maybe Pacholek just looked at the approval ratings for himself, which average at just about that much, and projected them at Bush. This is the same crap we hear from all Bush-bashing idiots: that Bush must be wrong because their rigged polls say so!

Thank you for your comment, KKK. *Now* I understand why Bush has such low approval ratings: because the polls are rigged. Got it. Also, "Dummycrat"? "Newsweak"? Hi-lar-i-ous. You should tour.

Oh, where to start? John, you are not as intellectually lazy as Bush, so I know you read the opening comment, which posted the link to the CBS News/New York Times poll that has Bush at 28 percent. Yes, I know, you think CBS and the Times are left-biased. If they truly were, Dan Rather would've been allowed to retire on his own terms, and David Brooks would be writing elsewhere -- and have you noticed that The Times' Maureen Dowd has been piling on Hillary? She ain't liberal, she just likes to tear people down. The Democrats don't have a stronger alternative on terror? Tell me, which Democratic candidate for President in 2000 or 2004 would have had Osama bin Laden surrounded and then withdrawn those troops to feed an insane vendetta against Saddam Hussein, the man who was keeping al-Qaeda out of Iraq? Gore? Kerry? Bradley? Edwards? Gephardt? Saint Joseph Lieberman? All would have been stronger on terrorism than Bush -- even, or maybe especially, Howard (the Hulk) Dean. Now, for Kicker: Bush isn't wrong because our polls say so. He is wrong because he proves it himself with every position he takes. Spaff: I know exactly the right place to start his tour: The streets of Baghdad. Preferably Sadr City. If I were President (and, at least Constitutionally, I could now be due to my age), Moqtada al-Sadr would've been dead about 2 hours after my Inauguration. Bush won't kill him any more than he will get bin Laden. He doesn't have the sense, and if he had the sense, it wouldn't matter, because he doesn't have the courage. Al Gore and John Kerry are twice the man he is, and Hillary Clinton is twice the woman he is.

OK, Michael. I plead guilty to not reading your introductory link. But I do not plead guilty to misjudging Democratic presidential candidates. None of them really elaborated a clear anti-terror policy except to criticize the President. But with respect to the War on Terror, I think President Bush should be held accountable and strongly criticized for all domestic terrorist killings since 9/11. Oh, there haven’t been any, have there?

No, there haven't been any terrorist killings on U.S. soil since 9/11. And Charles Manson hasn't ordered any murders since 1969. Should we let him out of prison? Same logic.