NOYB wrote:

His numbers have nothing to do with "performance". His numbers have to do
with the media's infatuation with Plamegate, Tom Delay, and any reports of
violence out of Iraq.

If the numbers were based upon his performance, the numbers would be quite
high...reflecting low unemployment, no domestic terrorist attacks in over 4
years, and a booming housing market.

So, would that mean that when Clinton was in office, and you righties
had Ken Starr trying to find something, anything, under a rock, that
his numbers were lower in the polls than his performance would
indicate? Or does this spin just work for republicans?