Study Ties Political Leanings to Hidden Biases

Study Ties Political Leanings to Hidden Biases

By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 30, 2006

Put a group of people together at a party and observe how they behave.
Differently than when they are alone? Differently than when they are
with
family? What if they're in a stadium instead of at a party? What if
they're
all men?

The field of social psychology has long been focused on how social
environments affect the way people behave. But social psychologists are
people, too, and as the United States has become increasingly
politically
polarized, they have grown increasingly interested in examining what
drives
these sharp divides: red states vs. blue states; pro-Iraq war vs.
anti-Iraq
war; pro-same-sex marriage vs. anti-same-sex marriage. And they have
begun
to study political behavior using such specialized tools as
sophisticated
psychological tests and brain scans.

"In my own family, for example, there are stark differences, not just of
opinion but very profound differences in how we view the world," said
Brenda
Major, a psychologist at the University of California at Santa
Barbara and
the president of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology,
which
had a conference last week that showcased several provocative
psychological
studies about the nature of political belief.

The new interest has yielded some results that will themselves provoke
partisan reactions: Studies presented at the conference, for example,
produced evidence that emotions and implicit assumptions often
influence why
people choose their political affiliations, and that partisans
stubbornly
discount any information that challenges their preexisting beliefs.

Emory University psychologist Drew Westen put self-identified
Democratic and
Republican partisans in brain scanners and asked them to evaluate
negative
information about various candidates. Both groups were quick to spot
inconsistency and hypocrisy -- but only in candidates they opposed.

When presented with negative information about the candidates they
liked,
partisans of all stripes found ways to discount it, Westen said. When
the
unpalatable information was rejected, furthermore, the brain scans
showed
that volunteers gave themselves feel-good pats -- the scans showed that
"reward centers" in volunteers' brains were activated. The psychologist
observed that the way these subjects dealt with unwelcome information
had
curious parallels with drug addiction as addicts also reward
themselves for
wrong-headed behavior.

Another study presented at the conference, which was in Palm Springs,
Calif., explored relationships between racial bias and political
affiliation
by analyzing self-reported beliefs, voting patterns and the results of
psychological tests that measure implicit attitudes -- subtle
stereotypes
people hold about various groups.

That study found that supporters of President Bush and other
conservatives
had stronger self-admitted and implicit biases against blacks than
liberals
did.

"What automatic biases reveal is that while we have the feeling we are
living up to our values, that feeling may not be right," said
University of
Virginia psychologist Brian Nosek, who helped conduct the race
analysis. "We
are not aware of everything that causes our behavior, even things in
our own
lives."

Brian Jones, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said he
disagreed with the study's conclusions but that it was difficult to
offer a
detailed critique, as the research had not yet been published and he
could
not review the methodology. He also questioned whether the researchers
themselves had implicit biases -- against Republicans -- noting that
Nosek
and Harvard psychologist Mahzarin Banaji had given campaign
contributions to
Democrats.

"There are a lot of factors that go into political affiliation, and snap
determinations may be interesting for an academic study, but the real-
world
application seems somewhat murky," Jones said.

Nosek said that though the risk of bias among researchers was "a
reasonable
question," the study provided empirical results that could -- and
would --
be tested by other groups: "All we did was compare questions that people
could answer any way they wanted," Nosek said, as he explained why he
felt
personal views could not have influenced the outcome. "We had no direct
contact with participants."

For their study, Nosek, Banaji and social psychologist Erik Thompson
culled
self-acknowledged views about blacks from nearly 130,000 whites, who
volunteered online to participate in a widely used test of racial
bias that
measures the speed of people's associations between black or white
faces and
positive or negative words. The researchers examined correlations
between
explicit and implicit attitudes and voting behavior in all 435
congressional
districts.

The analysis found that substantial majorities of Americans, liberals
and
conservatives, found it more difficult to associate black faces with
positive concepts than white faces -- evidence of implicit bias. But
districts that registered higher levels of bias systematically
produced more
votes for Bush.

"Obviously, such research does not speak at all to the question of the
prejudice level of the president," said Banaji, "but it does show that
George W. Bush is appealing as a leader to those Americans who harbor
greater anti-black prejudice."

Vincent Hutchings, a political scientist at the University of
Michigan in
Ann Arbor, said the results matched his own findings in a study he
conducted
ahead of the 2000 presidential election: Volunteers shown visual
images of
blacks in contexts that implied they were getting welfare benefits
were far
more receptive to Republican political ads decrying government waste
than
volunteers shown ads with the same message but without images of black
people.

Jon Krosnick, a psychologist and political scientist at Stanford
University,
who independently assessed the studies, said it remains to be seen how
significant the correlation is between racial bias and political
affiliation.

For example, he said, the study could not tell whether racial bias was a
better predictor of voting preference than, say, policy preferences
on gun
control or abortion. But while those issues would be addressed in
subsequent
studies -- Krosnick plans to get random groups of future voters to
take the
psychological tests and discuss their policy preferences -- he said the
basic correlation was not in doubt.

"If anyone in Washington is skeptical about these findings, they are in
denial," he said. "We have 50 years of evidence that racial prejudice
predicts voting. Republicans are supported by whites with prejudice
against
blacks. If people say, 'This takes me aback,' they are ignoring a huge
volume of research."

It's the Personality, Stupid by Frank R. Morris

It’s The Personality Organization, Stupid!
          by
           Frank R. Morris

 

 Forgive the title. It’s an attention-grabber like James Carwell’s famous line from the 1992 Presidential race - “It’s the economy, stupid”. George Lakoff’s Don’t Think of an Elephant provides hope that the populace is now ready to understand personality organization.  Lakoff systematically shows that Republican Conservatives are oriented around a “Strict Father” syndrome while liberal Democrats are centered around a “Nurturing Parent” syndrome.

 

 Psychotherapists have known for decades - perhaps even a century - of this now popular view of the difference between conservatives and progressives. Why “a century”?  Because a hundred years ago Sigmund Freud wrote a book on the Superego, Ego and Id.  Don’t get put-off by those phrases. He simply meant that there is one part of the mind that monitors and censors behavior in a critical manner (the Superego or Conscience). It thrives on discipline studded with should’s, ought’s and must’s.  The Ego simply means the centered reasonable self that is objective and delivers measured thinking. According to Freud, the Id represents remnants from childhood where a person acts out of old repressed material. Three circles stacked one on the other provide a visual picture. Superego is on top, the Ego is the center and  Id is the lower circle.

 

 Heavy drinking provides an excellent empirical illustration of the three story structure. Booze works from the top down. One or two martinis lifts many inhibitions at the top story, the Superego. Three martinis impair the Ego so driving becomes inadvisable. Four martinis and the drinker begins to reveal Id material and becomes either sad, angry, or happy like a child.  The next morning the Superego returns and the person with the headache cusses himself for being so idiotic.

 

 In the sixties, psychiatrist Eric Berne elaborated Freud’s scheme. He used five circles: two on top, one in the center, and two on the bottom. The top two were called “Critical Parent” and “Nurturing Parent”, the middle one “The Adult”, and the bottom two were labeled “Adapted Child” and “Natural Child”.  Berne’s scheme spawned great ferment in therapy. It became clear that the task of therapy was to lessen the size of the Critical Parent and the Adapted Child portions, while increasing the size of the Nurturing Parent, the Adult, and the Natural Child. (AC refers to the adaptations leftover from childhood).

 

         Contamination

 

 Additionally,  Berne came up with a wonderful diagram of how the Adult can be dismally influenced by either the Parent or the Child.  In each instance he used two circles. The top circle, or Parent, overlapped the middle circle or Adult. He said that this was when the prejudices of the Parent mess up (or contaminate) the thinking of the Adult. Likewise, he had the lower Child circle overlap the Adult circle and explained that this is when the wishes or problems of the Child space mess up (or contaminate) a person’s reasoned center.  This is important when engaging a Conservative or Progressive in conversation.   Further, this explains in dramatic form why it is so difficult to get clean information into heavily partisan persuasions.

 

         Choice Points

 

 Berne’s scheme adds to Lakoff’s linguistic analysis. The important idea is to realize that there is a Choice Point when a crisis  arises that distinguishes conservatives from progressives. The road splits when there is a moment of scare for the conservatives. Their scare prompts either a Critical Parent or Adapted obedient Child response.  Progressives tend to have an excited response at the Choice Point and can become overly  idealistic.

 

 An illustration is when social programs arise in discussion. Conservatives emphasize hard work, discipline, personal responsibility, and lean aid to the poor who,  supposedly, will motivate them to greater effort. Progressives emphasize providing equal opportunity in terms of better schools, food for the poor, and basic health coverage.  At the extreme ends, conservatives become super self righteous while progressives become enablers. Another illustration can be seen in prison treatment. Conservatives want harsh  interments that will, supposedly, install discipline in the personality. Progressives stress education for prisoners and help after incarceration.

 

 Now a seeming tangent that highlights personality organization. Let’s consider religious conversion.  Imagine a kid named George who spends his late adolescence and early adulthood as a drunk, roustabout and ne’er-do-well.  He grew up with a powerful father who was seldom around and a dominating mother who is like a Prison Matron. She was tough on her children. George rebelled. He did whatever the hell he wanted. At age forty, due to insistence from his wife, George found religion and did a complete about face. He ascribed his change to God. Psychologically speaking, he had found his mother’s programming in his unconscious mind.  How do therapists know this? Because “conversion” occurs in areas outside religion. A person may switch from being Id (or Child) driven to the Adult or Parent.  Common parlance understands this conversion phenomenon  when comments are made about there being nothing worse than a reformed drunk, overeater or  smoker.

 

 Consider Foreign Policy.  Conservatives approach foreign policy in a disciplining, strict father manner. Words they use are “muscular”, “tough” and “decisive” They lead with military power and think diplomacy is often weak. This alienates a good portion of world leaders who are unwilling to adapt and please the USA.. It is true that progressives can be too nurturing.  The smart Foreign Policy principle is to never become predictable because that fosters defeat. Decisions are best made out of a cold Adult space; not Critical Parent or Nurturing Parent.

 

 Another example. Child rearing focusing on either of the extremes leads to problems. The Critical Parent conservative approach either leads to rebels or pleasing adapted kids who remain obedient and do not achieve separate thinking identity. The Nurturing Parent approach can be so permissive and forgiving that children can be so lax that they take drugs and live irresponsible lives. The idea for parents is to use whatever parental response that aids children to have separate identities that provide personal fulfillment.

 

 One of the grand characteristics of the Critical Parent approach is the reliance upon rhetoric. Like automatons, they seek formulas supplied by religionists, propagandists, political spinners and business leaders. To onfrontations by others,  lock-step folks repeat slogans learned on the radio from Dobson or Limbaugh, on television from Hannity or O’Reilly, or on the Internet from Drudge. In other words, true believers do not think: they recite. Many of this persuasion believe that showing shaming, sarcasm, and disgust are actual logical thinking. They are unaware of their dismissive tone and believe themselves reasonable.

 

         Why Won’t Conservatives Stick to Reason?

 

 Structurally speaking (ie.  Think three story building) they go to the Parent place with absolute unquestioned belief structures. They cannot understand why others do not grasp their rigid points. Whether it is Religion (fundamentalist interpretations), Economics (Fair Trade absolutism), Education (testing toughness), or other issues, they speak down  in a Father Knows Best style. You and I may know that the Judeo-Christian Tradition has marginalized women; Conservatives deny it. You and I may know that reading the Bible, like any document, is subject to the three immutable laws of selection, emphasis, and interpretation: they deny it. You and I may know that the Constitution is a human document that needs elaboration; they spout nonsense about strict constructionism. You and I may know that Free Trade is not absolute; they hide behind  rhetoric.

 

 Further, they refuse to examine their premises. It is logically maddening. In fact, nothing is more pathetic than their attempts at writing non-fiction. The reader is soon aware that the conservative writer has a decay of spirit, a loss of soul, and inability to authentically  feel. Why? Because disgust and disdain fill the text.  Splashing acerbic verbal acid on a liberal is considered reasonable. Writers such as Coulter and Hannity actually think that haughty sarcasm is logical thinking, when, in reality, it only shows their lack of emotional soundness.

 

 BUT, there is a major reason why conservatives cannot pursue arguments.. If, say, a fundamentalist were to realize  his house of cards rhetoric is false, he fears mental annihilation. Internally, he believes that if  his system of meaning is phony (ex. based on the flat earth view), he would be perched perilously close to the edge of the abyss. Fear of truth holds for any close-minded mental system, including Supply-Side economics. Simply speaking, unless the hide-bound conservatives hold to their rigid premises, they fear psychosis. This is why honesty with data cannot be allowed. This is enormously sad because good people are so delusioned.

 

          Applications
      
 1. One illustration is how to solve a matter of human nature. Each person has a remnant from our animal past where, given the right (or horrible) conditions, humans act like barbarians.  Critical Parent Republicans have solved this through discipline, obedience, a continual barrage of shoulds-oughts-musts-you gotta’s, a reliance upon scared sarcasm at emergences of crises, and a quick appeal to a tightened, denial sense in terms of their bodies. Liberal-progressives have a different approach to handling the barbarian within. The idea is education, art, culture, reason, and continued intellectual dialog.

 

 2. Understanding the difference in personality organization explains why right-wingers can be so verbally cocksure.  Democrats, in the light of such absolutism, seem disorganized. An example is Gingrich when he talks about history. He is definitely certain that his selections, emphases, and interpretations are absolutely true - no question. A liberal would be more hesitant and realize the complexities of historical interpretation.

 

 3. The Parent personality organization emphasizes loyalty as a primary virtue which leads to cronyism. This can be seen in Bill Bennett’s Book of Virtues  and in the GWB White House. This means that truth is subservient to obedience. Whistle-blowers must be prosecuted.

 

 4. When the variation in terms of personality organization is understood, it becomes clear why soldiers and evangelicals usually vote Republican. They are brainwashed to be obedient to absolute chains of command. Further, soldiers must demonize the enemy in order to kill them. Evangelicals believe that those who disagree with them theologically will be burn in hell for trillions upon trillions of years (without water!).

 

 5. It also becomes clear why business leaders who have gone through the system in order to be promoted also have the Parent dominated personality. To be promoted it is best to not question actions of bosses.

     How to Get Through

 

 As can be imagined, psychotherapists face the problem of communicating to those with closed minds everyday. While it is true that the Parent driven are frequently not in therapy because their system has ALL the answers,  the looming threat of a divorce often brings them to the couch. So, what works? Let me assure you that arguments are in vain.

 

 Therapy, to an amazing degree, operates on questions. That’s right: questions. The next step is to chisel the questions in such a way that dents may be made in the armored.

 

 +“So you are saying that your primary life energy is spent in business and that your family should be willing to live in the background until you accrue major capital ... say in thirty years or so ... is that right?”  (Humor: one dairy owner actually told his 30 year old wife that they would have fun when he retired at age 65!)
 +“Are you aware that you are saying that your religious group of maybe 75,000 people are absolutely right and that the rest of the five billion people on earth will go to hell?”
 +“Are you saying that Free Trade is absolute in all dimensions and that no other considerations are to be taken into consideration?”
 +“Do you have any idea that the life you are describing in incredibly boring”?

 

 Well, you get the idea. You are shooting for a reductio ad absurdum. The trick is to phrase it Adultly with no judgment. Also, the idea is to slam the person right up against his/her premises so, maybe, the light of day can pierce into the dark room.

 

 Does that sound easy? Well, with right wing religionists your chances are very small. With lost businessmen, your chances rise. With conservatives who are aghast at the fiscal mismanagement of the administration, hope improves. And with friends, your chances go even higher. But you have to allow questions to be like seeds in the mind. Then let Nature take over.

 

 

Round Four of 'Thrilla' in America by Frank R. Morris

            Round Four of ‘Thrilla’ in America
             

by  Frank   R.   Morris

 

 Prepare! The 2006 onslaught of the Karl Rove Hate and Fear Show is about to begin.  This media circus has worked for two Presidential elections and one Congressional election. The idea is to scare the living Beelzebub out of Americans that “coming in your neighborhood soon are the evil terrorists who will blast you, drug you, chemically destroy your family, and biologically reduce you to blobs of protoplasm”   Scouts honor!  Card one: Security. 

 

 It does not matter where you live. The Scourge is coming. The Black Death. The Big Bad Wolf.  Mongols and Vikings have formed an alliance. There will be a mushroom cloud in your future - and here’s the catch - unless you vote for Republicans.  It’s a matter of national security, children! Only testosterone-driven Neo-Cons can make this country safe. The weenie Democrats are asleep at the switch and do not know that the enemy is at the gates.

 

 I can sniff the ads emanating from the pig yard. “Vote Republican! Why? Because the Wimp faction - those sissy girly-men - don’t have a pint of fight among the lot of them.  Where is their chest hair? Where were they when we were attacking Iraq? They don’t have guts. They want to negotiate and use diplomacy and follow silly surrender games with the U.N   Not us Republicans. Each white man of us knows might is right, power should be used in a Shock and Awe fashion, and that the only thing terrorists understand is what comes out of the barrel of a gun! And, as for guns, we think everyone in America should be wearing one on her or his hip. That’s the solution to everything. No terrorist will want to come to our country once we are armed with 50 caliber sniper rifles in every home.  Security is the issue! Raise the color on the Terrorist bar code.  (Anything to win, anything to scare Americans to vote R, anything to sway public opinion will be used in extremis).

 

 Pardon me while I barf.

 

 Card Two. War President. George Bush is the War President. He has been the War President since 9/11. The War President needs a sympathetic Congress. If Dems were to win, they might question the Iraq War instigated by the War President. That would be bad, bad, bad. Why? Because democracies must flourish in the Mideast and the Iraq War initiated by the War President cannot be challenged by unpatriotic Senators or Congressmen who do not agree with everything said by the War President. (There is no need to instigate a reality check and point out that terrorists have multiplied since Bush’s war,  Hamas won the Palestinian democratic election or that, in Iraq’s December elections, a Shia theocracy won out in Southern Iraq thereby cancelling rights for women and the Kurds in the North want their own country. Why is reality ignored? Because we have a War President who has the bully pulpit with the media).

 

 Remember, kiddies, that the Iraq War is really about the War on Terrorism. Only an extreme cynic would think that it had anything to do with oozing oil. If you oppose the War President you are for the terrorists. No doubt about it. Bush is the War President and he can spy on American citizens, jail American citizens as enemy combatants without legal options, and torture people if he wants to because he is “protecting the American People. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. Hail to the Chief.

 

 Card Three. God.  The word “God” has been used to justify a thousand wars including the present one. If you haven’t noticed, Pat R., Jerry F., and James Dobson are frequently on mainline media trumping war and the War President. Ugly liberal Christians, Muslims, and Jews are not invited to speak on television. The Pat, Jerry and James show contain ultimate truth so why should anyone else be allowed an opinion?  If you do, you are in danger of hellfire. Who wants to spend the next several trillion years burning without even a glass of water handy? 

 

 In days gone by there was a song for children in churches: “Jesus wants you for a sunbeam to shine throughout the land”. Now the song is apparently changed to “God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and all the angels in heaven want you to vote Republican. Otherwise, you are an immoral, hateful, nasty, trash-talking Democrat”.  So, if you want to join the moral majority, love your family, and get ice cream on Sundays, you must-have to-ought vote R. Watch out and don’t shout because Santa Claus is coming to town.

 

 God - the Ultimate Weapon.  St. Rove wants this card waved to high heaven.

 

 Card Four: Taxes. In old Chicago days, the way to get votes was to give a beer to a drunk, buy a bottle of Ripple for a wino, or purchase a burger for someone in welfare housing. “Vote early and often” was the motto. Now, the Republican pitch is to cut taxes. “It’s not the government’s money, it’s the people’s money” whines Governor Owens of Colorado.  Lecherous old democrats “tax and spend”.  If you believe in mindless bureaucracies, big government, and giving your hard earned money to D.C. politicians, you are a blood-greedy Democrat.. 

 

 Less is more. Subtraction is multiplication. We can wage war and cut taxes. The deficit is nothing. We can afford guns and butter and cut taxes. Do you believe in college aid, building infrastructure, or, Godlets forbid, helping people or solid helping yourself? Vote Republican.

 

 For any idle egg head professor who thinks cold reason can influence American voting by pointing out that government and special interest hand-outs  have grown recently, don’t waste your breath. Propaganda is all. Truth has nothing to do with perception. As long as the media is complicit,  Democrats fail in attacking back, and  the War President has the bully pulpit,  reality is dead. The tax con is just as good as the Chicago Machine’s buying of a wino, drunk, or bum.
                                                         *****************

 

 Well, there you have it: Karl Rove’s winning formula in a nutshell.

 

 Will the American People actually awaken and discover there are no nuts under any of the four shells in the political shell game?  Or will they keep nuts in office?

The Republican Battle Plan for 2006 and 2008

Rove Offers Republicans A Battle Plan For Elections

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 21, 2006; Page A01

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove offered a biting preview
of the 2006 midterm elections yesterday, drawing sharp distinctions
with the Democrats over the campaign against terrorism, tax cuts and
judicial philosophy, and describing the opposition party as backward-
looking and bereft of ideas.

"At the core, we are dealing with two parties that have fundamentally
different views on national security," Rove said. "Republicans have a
post-9/11 worldview and many Democrats have a pre-9/11 worldview.
That doesn't make them unpatriotic -- not at all. But it does make
them wrong -- deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong."


Democrats are "deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong" on
national security, Karl Rove said. (By Jason Reed -- Reuters)

Rove spoke at the winter meeting of the Republican National Committee
and, with RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, provided a campaign blueprint for
fighting the Democrats. They spoke at the beginning of an important
election year in which Republicans are battling historical trends,
public unrest over Iraq and a spreading corruption scandal that
together threaten to reduce the GOP majorities in the House and the
Senate and possibly shift control of one or both chambers to the
Democrats.

At a time when Democrats have staked their hopes in large part on the
issue of corruption, Rove and Mehlman showed that Republicans plan to
contest the elections on themes that have helped expand their
majorities under President Bush. They see national security and the
vigorous prosecution of the campaign against terrorism at the heart
of the GOP appeal to voters.

Rove's RNC address was a rare public appearance at a time when he
remains under investigation in the CIA leak case that resulted in the
indictment and resignation of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff,
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Despite the investigation, Rove is still
Bush's top political adviser.

Taking no questions from the audience or the news media, Rove used
his platform to excoriate Democrats for "wild and reckless and false
charges" against Bush on the issue of domestic spying and what he
called an attempted smear against Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. at his
Supreme Court confirmation hearings last week. "Some members of the
committee came across as mean-spirited and small-minded, and it left
a searing impression," Rove said, referring to the Senate Judiciary
Committee.

Mehlman echoed Rove on national security and taxes and explicitly
addressed the corruption issue. Republicans and Democrats have
offered competing plans to tighten the rules regulating the
interaction between lawmakers and lobbyists, but, as the majority
party, Republicans stand to lose more if there is widespread public
revulsion over the scandal.

Calling for the vigorous prosecution of any wrongdoing, Mehlman
sought to insulate his party from the spreading scandal involving
lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the indictment of former House majority
leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and the guilty plea of former
representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.). "If Republicans
are guilty of illegal or inappropriate behavior," Mehlman said, "then
they should pay the price and they should suffer the consequences."

Rove referred only indirectly to the corruption issue, warning
Republicans against becoming complacent in power. "The GOP's progress
during the last four decades is a stunning political achievement," he
said. "But it is also a cautionary tale of what happens to a dominant
party -- in this case the Democrat Party -- when its thinking becomes
ossified, when its energy begins to drain, when an entitlement
mentality takes over, and when political power becomes an end in
itself rather than a means to achieve the common good."

Democrats were quick to respond, with Democratic National Committee
Chairman Howard Dean challenging Rove's fitness to serve. "Karl Rove
only has a White House job and a security clearance because President
Bush has refused to keep his promise to fire anyone involved in
revealing the identity of an undercover CIA operative," Dean said in
a statement. Dean added: "The truth is, Karl Rove breached our
national security for partisan gain and that is both unpatriotic and
wrong."

It was four years ago this week when Rove, appearing at another
meeting of the RNC, said Republicans would make terrorism a central
issue of the 2002 midterm elections. Rove's remarks infuriated
Democrats, who protested that, until then, Bush had stressed
bipartisanship and national unity in response to the Sept. 11, 2001,
attacks.

Republicans made historic gains in 2002, and Bush successfully used
the issue again to help secure his reelection in 2004, despite
growing public dissatisfaction with the administration's handling of
the war in Iraq. Yesterday's speeches by Rove and Mehlman signaled
that the White House and the RNC intend to pursue much the same
strategy in a midterm-election year that begins with Republicans on
the defensive.

Mehlman and Rove accused the Democrats of trying to weaken the USA
Patriot Act and of embracing calls for a premature exit from Iraq.
They defended Bush's use of warrantless eavesdropping to gather
intelligence about possible terrorist plots. "Do Nancy Pelosi and
Howard Dean really think that when the NSA is listening in on
terrorists planning attacks on America, they need to hang up when
those terrorists dial their sleeper cells in the United States?"
Mehlman asked. Pelosi (D-Calif.) is the House minority leader.

Before completing their meeting, the Republicans rebuffed efforts to
pass a resolution on immigration that would have put the national
committee at odds with the president over the issue of a guest-worker
program. Instead, the RNC approved a resolution supporting Bush's
position.