Dear Friends,

I thought you all might be interested in this compelling news story from the CNN website, so I decided to post it on my blog, American Coprophagia. I hope you will be edified by the news information contained in this story:

Bush approval rating moves back up

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's approval rating -- which had declined in recent weeks -- moved back up, primarily due to big gains among men and among high-income Americans, according to a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

Whew! I'm relieved Bush's approval ratings have "moved back up" after having "declined"--but I guess it was time for things to balance themselves out. I mean, what goes down must come up, right? And (if my interpretation of this news is correct) the rise in Bush's approval rating can be attributed to "big gains" among men and among high-income Americans. If my logic is correct here, I believe that means Bush would be wise to continue his appeal to men and high-income Americans if he wants to continue to make such "big gains."

A majority of registered voters say that Bush deserves to be re-elected, but only 38 percent of voters say they will definitely vote for Bush, according to the poll. With exactly the same number saying they would vote against Bush, the battle for the swing voters in the middle seems more important than ever.

Word up on that analysis...the "battle" for the "swing voters" "in the middle" does indeed seem "more important than ever." (Memo to Bush: you'd do well to woo a few of those "swing voters in the middle"--but only as long as you don't forget about the men and high-income Americans!

In recent weeks, Bush's approval rating had slid as Democrats, particularly those seeking their party's 2004 presidential nomination, stepped up their rhetorical attacks on Bush's Iraq policy and his stewardship of the economy.

The "as" here is interesting. What exactly is CNN implying? That "Bush's approval rating had slid" because "Democrats...stepped up their rhetorical attacks"; or that "Bush's approval rating had slid" at the same time as (or in some indeterminate yet temptingly causal conjunction with?) "Democrats...stepped up their rhetorical attacks"? Hmm...I guess this news story isn't so straightforward as it had initially seemed. But I do know one thing: those Democrats better be glad their attacks were merely "rhetorical" (i.e., spoken to audiences), because direct "physical" or "military" attacks on the president can land you in a heap of trouble.

But administration figures are taking part in an aggressive public relations effort explaining the Iraq policy, and Bush is speaking out more on the economy.

Thank god! If they can "explain" "the Iraq policy" well enough, maybe this whole thing can get turned around. I mean, all Americans have been saying they want is for "the Iraq policy" to be "explained" to them. And with regard to the economy: speak out! We're all ears.

Bush's increasing approval rating comes

Not just "increased"--increasing! This sounds to me like a trend...could there be momentum involved?

along with a reminder that although economic conditions may not be in great shape, the public is not as pessimistic about the economy as they were in 1991, when Bush's father was gearing up for his unsuccessful re-election bid.

So let's see: the "increasing approval rating" "comes along with" the "reminder" indicated above. But: who is being "reminded"? And of what? I guess Bush is being reminded that this poll shows that what happened to his father isn't going to happen to him. Whew!

Today, 44 percent say the economy is in good shape -- up seven points since March -- and nearly two-thirds say that the economy will be in good shape a year from now.

Let's hope they're right!

Americans, however, are in an angry mood -- much angrier the past few years -- and who knows who they may take it out on?

Man, don't we know it! Didn't Arnold Schwarzenegger just ride to victory in California on a mammoth wave of anger? Governors and politicians everywhere have been put on notice. Americans are much angrier.

But the question is: at whom?