Every time we write a critical post about Time Warner or Microsoft, or expose a negative fact, rumor or analysis, the refrain renews: fire the CEO! Dick Parsons, that lucky guy, gets the brunt of our readers' anger. He's screwing up Time Warner, you've told us time and time again, he should go. So say you of Microsoft's Steve Ballmer, he of the explosive personality, sweaty armpits, and billions in inexplicable operating expenses. Sometimes it's Jeff Immelt of GE, or even well-loved figures like Meg Whitman of eBay.

But usually, it's Dick. Today is no different. With 2nd quarter earnings coming out next Wednesday, and everyone wondering about the company's plans with its AOL unit, Joan Lappin from Gramercy Capital Management demands in the pages of Fortune, "Save Time Warner, Fire Parsons."

It's nothing new, but it's worth evaluating her reasons for the radical battle cry. She argues that Parsons is all about politics (in fact, he's rumored to be angling for a 2009 run for New York City mayor), a skill that helped him avoid perishing in the "shark tank" that has been Time Warner's boardroom for the past decade and earned him credit as being a "Teflon Don," but has failed miserably to maintain Time Warner's legacy as a creative, entrepreneurial culture where good managers were rewarded "generous financial incentives for producing solid earnings growth." Fire Parsons, she says, and maybe that creative culture can be revived.

I honor her passion, and agree that the creative, entrepreneurial company always wins over the political shark tank. But who, Joan, is positioned to take the helm from him? That question must be answered before anyone brings out a block and starts chopping.