Burning no calories

It's fun when the Wayne Review contradicts itself within the span of a paragraph, and all I need to do is highlight the contradiction. A much easier task! Anyway, try to reconcile Joe Koss saying

Bush has an approval rating of 57%.... Heh, maybe people do want to control their own lives and money... whoda thunk it?

with the Gallup poll cited directly below his comment:

The [approval rating] increase appears to be related to the Iraqi elections... The poll shows little change in Bush's job approval rating on the economy or on Social Security.

UPDATE: Apparently I need to repeat part of the Wayne Review's own citation:

The [approval rating] increase appears to be related to the Iraqi elections...

Hopefully this answers M.C.'s question, "If the State of the Union address was apparently so bad then why has his approval rating gone up?" Well, I didn't say the speech was bad -- Joe made that implication in his unique, grammar-troubled manner. My entire point was that Joe attributed the approval increase to Bush's Social Security proposal, when the Gallup poll said the complete opposite was true.

Jeez, I guess I need to spell these things out in the future -- I thought my argument was completely clear.

UPDATE 2: A special thanks to Barsenas Translation Services for converting Joe-Kossian into English. I just have to wonder: why didn't Joe write

President Bush's approval rating did not decline, therefore people were not displeased with the message of his State of the Union address.

in the first place, instead of the easy-to-misinterpret, grammatically-challenged

Bush has an approval rating of 57%. Not bad... but I thought after that "horrible?" State of the Union speech he gave. Heh, maybe people do want to control their own lives and money... whoda thunk it?

I think M.C. should be editor-in-chief, because his writing is more clear.