Paul et al.,
 
Paul said, in part, (snip) "The survey list is interesting but since 'Crime'  doesn't appear on it, are we to assume that 'Crime' is not important to Americans? That seems unlikely.  (The only category that comes close is 'Improve judicial system/courts'  but that seems to be a different point). We might therefore reasonably hope that although some issues may not 'trip (Did you mean 'tip'?) of the tongue'  they can still  be embedded."

You are confusing 'salience' and 'relevance.' This survey only tested 'salient' concepts, i.e. those that were spontaneously mentioned by the respondents. If they had been given a list of things they could discuss with Bush and asked to rank them, certainly crime would have been there and would have been high on the list. In fact if you had used exactly this list, the order probably would have been different. The point with Salience is that this is what people are currently thinking of. 

As it concerns 'environment,' the salience of environmental issues has been steadily shrinking in recent years. If people are asked if environmental issues are important they overwhelmingly respond positively. If they are asked, however, to say what is important, they mention the environment less and less. 

Not sure why, in this study, crime, which is usually very high, was not mentioned. Probably because most people either think Bush is doing a good job on crime, or that it isn't something he can do much about. 

However, my point in all these posts is that that the importance of environmental issues as a 'tip of the tongue' sort of thing is declining. 

Steven

Q. How do you make God laugh?
A. You tell Her your plans.
     2nd corollary to Murphy´s Law