2002 Mid-Term Election Results

       MR. RACICOT: Good morning to all of you. I am delighted to have the privilege to spend some time with you this morning. And I thought what I would do is give you my brief glimpse of what unfolded over the course of the last several months and then, of course, have the opportunity for some questions and discussion, as you deem appropriate.

       We began back in January with a more intense focus upon all of the elections that were going to be taking place across the United States of America, obviously focused upon those that would impact members of Congress, both in the House and the Senate, but with an equal concern and emphasis upon governor's races around the United States. Governors, we believe, play a critically important role in our system of government. Most certainly, a great many initiatives have begun within the offices of governors and in the individual states.

       If you recall -- I suspect you will -- the most graphic example is probably welfare reform, which actually started in the laboratories of democracy around the United States of America in state legislatures and in governors' offices, and ultimately became national policy. And as a consequence of that, we have realized for a long period of time that those offices are important to the functioning of our system of government. So we were focused upon all three.

       Our initial understanding, our initial belief, obviously, was that the country was experiencing a great deal of parity. I like to phrase it in terms of parity rather than division, because we have a ruggedly independent electorate that I believe over the course of time is less and less partisan, and more inclined to have the cause established to their satisfaction prior to the time that they invest their confidence in one candidate or another. And as a result of that, we knew all of these elections were going to be very close, and that people were going to give their best effort on both sides of the aisle from beginning to end.

       We also believed that -- in reference to governors, that there were some challenges that we faced in some parts of the country that had not been problems for us in the past. Largely, those problems emanated from the notion that we had a lot of Republican governors who had been in office for a long period of time. For instance, in Illinois, we have had a Republican governor for 30 years. And the pendulum does swing back and forth. All of us who are involved as candidates realize that, and we knew there would be some special dynamics because of the special circumstances there, as well as the fact that we had people serving for a long period of time.

       We also believed that we would have some new opportunities afforded to us in reference to governors' offices. In the Northeast, for instance, as well in the South, and we believed in Alaska and Hawaii.

       So we started knowing that this was going to be a very, very substantial challenge and that we would have to prove our mettle to the people of this country.

       As it turned out, I believe that the results were achieved for four very self-evident reasons, probably self-evident to all of you, and, I think, very simple reasons. Number one, we had a champion and an advocate in the president, who worked very, very hard to communicate with the American people his agenda, as well as his desire to have the opportunity to get something done on behalf of the American people. And he worked tirelessly in that effort to try and make certain that he spent as much time as he could to focus on that domestic agenda, and to talk to his fellow citizens to build their support to provide him the chance to work with others in Congress to advance the business of the American people.

       If you will recall parenthetically for just a moment, when the president took office, pursuant to his reputation, he proceeded without delay to address a number of difficult issues that he'd talked about during the campaign in a bipartisan fashion, and he received bipartisan support for those initiatives. The tax reform initiative, obviously, had Democratic support in the Senate and the House; the education initiative certainly was the product of a bipartisan effort; and trade promotion authority would be another noteworthy example of bipartisan support to an initiative brought forward by the president.

       There were, however, a number of other efforts undertaken by the president, and then after putting their stamp of approval on them, the House of Representatives moved them through the process, but they stagnated and laid latent in the United States Senate. And as a consequence of that, there was a certain paralysis to the movement of those policy initiatives, and I believe that that was a critically important factor in what it was that ultimately happened in a number of elections around the country.

       So he began with an urgent desire to want to do something for the American people. I might tell you plainly that in reference to questions that I've been asked about whether or not he risked a lot of political capital by becoming so engaged, or whether or not this was an appropriate function for him to perform, my answer, I believe, is probably simplistic, but I believe is absolutely true. Number one, he is the leader of our party. The people of this country know and understand that those who are involved in serving in political positions obviously will be involved in political activities, and they expected that he would be involved in this effort because it is a legitimate part of what it is that he does, serving as president of the United States.

       And secondly, in reference to the risking of capital, I don't believe that was ever even a relevant question to him, because longevity has never been a goal. Getting something done has been the focus of his efforts, rather than simply remaining in office for a longer period of time.

       So number one, I believe we had a great advocate and a champion to address the issues of import to the people of America, who tirelessly worked on our behalf.

       Secondly, I think that we had exceptionally fine candidates who gave every measure of effort to the enterprises that they were involved in. They worked themselves to the point of exhaustion. And they studied hard, and they listened carefully, and they spoke thoughtfully to the issues that were presented in individual states, some of which were unique to individual states and, of course, to their responsibilities that they would perform at the national level.

       Thirdly, I believe that we had supporters all across the country, just good and decent people, citizens of this nation, who supported those candidates and worked as well in tireless fashion and dedicated themselves in tireless fashion.

       We also supplemented and tried to inspire those efforts over the course of the last two years by reestablishing our networks all across the United States that -- we realized that in fact political activity in this country, to be successful, still is very much dependent upon people being engaged with other people.

       I think there were times where some of us, even as candidates -- I know that I probably certainly fell prey to this notion -- came to believe that if you put together enough resources to secure enough advertising, that somehow your political future would be safe and secure. And there is a certain amount of security that comes over you when you see one of your television ads appearing, but it dissipates rather quickly when you see one from the opposition that's being presented just as repetitively as yours is. And I think, over time, we became somewhat distracted from investing in that human infrastructure that -- and the networking that is so essential to being successful in a political effort of one kind or another.

       So we set about to reestablish that during the Bush campaign and then built upon that over the course of the last two years, recognizing, of course, that the opposition party had been very effective with their efforts in that regard. And we set about to once again build on something that had been a real strength to us in the past. So that was the third thing that I think was very important.

       And finally, I believe our candidates spoke to the issues. The fact of the matter is that the American people, I think, want something done. And my experience with them has been that they would just as soon diminish the amount of hyperbole and rhetoric that gets exchanged and the intramural gymnastics that on occasion they witness, and have people engaged in working on issues that are relevant in their individual lives. And as a result of that, we focused on those issues.

       Now that's not to suggest that there weren't other issues that weren't hotly debated every single day being of great importance to the people of this country. I think there were. Most notably, the war on terrorism and the issues that surround Iraq were issues of critical importance to the American people.

       I think they thought about those things every single day. And certainly how their senator or representative voted was one of the issues that they considered in making up their minds about whether or not they were going to vest their confidence on one candidate or another. But those issues, in my experience -- and I was in 40 different states, I think I made 90 different trips around the country over the course of the last nine months -- were not debated as a first item of priority every single time that I was privy to be a part of a political event of one kind or another. In fact, they were rarely the subject of debate.

       So I think that reflects a couple of things. Number one is the extraordinary amount of agreement that there is among the people of this nation about how it is that we should address those issues. And even though critically important to them, they had realized the country had come together, Congress had come together and in very substantial terms had given direction, counsel and advice to the president pursuant to his request to proceed to address those issues. Not that there's no anxiety; I wouldn't suggest that for a moment. It's just that they knew that those issues were going to be addressed and that there would be a process of deliberation, and that there were other things, as well, impacting their daily lives that they wanted at the same moment in time for Congress to deal with: things like energy, things like terrorism insurance reform, things like the Homeland Security Department itself, its formation and its preparation to address the exigencies that are now presented to us here in terms of defending our shores and providing for safety and security here in our country; and a number of other issues: a pension reform bill, a prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients.

       All of those issues, that had started with the president, worked their way through the House of Representatives and yet had remained lying dormant in the United States Senate are the issues that we talked about and that we asked for permission to resolve and deal with. So it actually was a very simple formula that we set about, a very simple plan that we set about to execute, believing that it would be a monumental accomplishment for us to be able to hold on to the House of Representatives, to hold on to a majority of the governorships and to regain control of the Senate.

       It would have been incredibly historic simply to hold on to the House; to expand its membership was something that we were almost fearful of thinking about because it seemed like such a long stretch. To regain control of the Senate, obviously, would have been astronomically historical because it hadn't been done before by a Republican president, at least not in my understanding, for a century or so. And so we knew it was possible, we felt it was possible, but we made no extravagant proclamations about whether or not it would occur, because we just simply felt it was going to take a lot of hard work and a lot of teamwork and it would take every ounce of effort that we had and the goodwill and the confidence of the American people providing us that opportunity.

       So that's what we set about to do. And now we are at this moment in time where in fact the American people have granted the request that we made, and that is, to provide us the chance and the opportunity to move forward to address the agenda that's important to all of our fellow citizens. And we will do that with enthusiasm and we will do that in a bipartisan way.

       As all of you know, the arcane rules of the Senate certainly provide for there to be an assurance of bipartisanship. And to be very honest with you, this president, and the leadership of the Senate in Republican form, certainly would want to do that anyway, because at the end of the day, if we're going to end up resolving difficult policy issues and promulgating initiatives for the American people that make sense to them, we must work in that fashion, and should work in that fashion.

       So, we're ready to roll up our sleeves and, with those on the other side of the aisle, to go to work on behalf of the American people, and to enthusiastically embrace this new opportunity that's been presented to us.

       So that's my summary of where we were, what we went through, and where I think we are today. And I'd be delighted to take your questions.

       Yes, sir?

       Oh, I'm sorry.

       MODERATOR: (Off mike.)

       Q Yes, my name is Shiri Rivil (ph). I work for the Finnish newspaper called Helsingin Sanomat. Can I come back to the Iraq question and clarify it a bit? Is it fair to say that Iraq was not a decisive issue in the campaign or in the outcome of the elections?

       MR. RACICOT: Well, I should probably issue a disclaimer. Obviously, I'm neither commissioned nor authorized to talk about foreign affairs in a way that others that are actually in the administration would be allowed to do. And you're asking for my opinion, which I'm happy to share with you. But there are probably a lot of opinions about this that are entitled to consideration.

       My view is that the events of September 11th and the response to the dynamics in Iraq have allowed the people of this country and this planet to observe and learn about the leadership capacity of this president; how he deliberates, how he proceeds with a sense of conviction and principle, and how he is a man of his word. And I believe that there is an appropriate mixture of capacities within him that allow for us to deal with this issue in a very, very constructive way, but a very, very convicted way at the same point in time.

       And I think the American people watched him; they came to know him the way I have been privileged to know him for some period of time, and they invested their confidence in him and in his foreign policy team to address these issues in a careful, deliberative way that is principled and firm.

       So I do think it was an issue, but it was not one that people ran on, either Democrats or Republicans that I could discern in broad fashion all across the country, because there was such a high level of bipartisan support for the initiatives that were undertaken. I don't want to diminish its importance, because it's critically important. But I do believe that there is a significant amount of support on both sides of the aisle in this country for the president, for his foreign policy teams and for the people in Congress who have been supportive of his efforts.

       Q Michael Backfisch (ph), German business daily Handelsblatt. Mr. Racicot, what's the major thrust of your domestic agenda to come? Could you elaborate especially on the planned tax cuts, and what's the benefits for average American citizens and for businesses? And do you have any timeline, any deadline where you say you want to have it done by this or that time?

       MR. RACICOT: Well, one of the vagaries of serving in this capacity is that you realize quickly that although you may be responsible for many things, you probably have authority over very little. And as a consequence, I certainly can't speak for the Senate leadership and their schedule or the House leadership and their schedule, nor for the president.

       My belief is this, and I do have confidence in what I will say in reference to what I expect to unfold, and that is there has been an agenda before Congress that has not been acted upon. And I believe that agenda not having been addressed is one of the most significant issues of this campaign season. And I believe that the Republicans in Congress, and certainly the administration, will seek to address those issues as quickly as they possibly can.

       And those will -- would probably be categorized largely into three areas. One would be homeland security, the other would be the economy and finally, I believe that they will continue to focus upon education. And education and the issues that are associated with the well-being of many Americans who are vulnerable and need assurances, particularly the senior citizens across this country in reference to a Medicare prescription drug benefit and the pension reform issues.

       So if I were to inventory the issues that I expect them to take up quickly, I would say the Department of Homeland Security is an urgent matter because we simply need to be prepared and in a position to defend as thoughtfully and as effectively as we can. When you do not have that entity created, you don't have a vehicle for anything from appropriations to the exercise of consolidated authority. So it's a matter that's very urgent, and I believe that they will address themselves to that issue.

       Secondly, I think that you'll see the issue of terrorism insurance reform addressed, and I wouldn't list these in terms of priority, they're just the issues that I think are of import, have been debated to a significant degree, and now are ready for decision. That's an important issue for a huge number of reasons, most of which has to do with job creation in this country. If we had an insurance reform bill at the moment, we would have hundreds of thousands of new jobs across this country and billions of dollars worth of additional construction. Just simply because of those liability potentials, that has not moved forward. So it's a very, very important issue to those who are in business, and to those who employ people and to those who want to go to work.

       In reference to the energy bill, again, another very important issue. That particular issue has abated somewhat in terms of its intensity because of everything from beneficial weather conditions to a slowdown in the economy.

       But that condition is not going to last, and the requirement to address everything from renewables to making sure we have an energy independence in this country that we can ultimately depend upon still remains critical. And that issue as well not only has to do with our security; it has to do with our economy. And in addition, that will produce some opportunity for job expansion, job creation in this country. So that would be another issue under the broad heading of economy.

       Passing a budget is going to be centrally important to function. It's required by law. The Senate is required to pass a budget and should have by April 15th of this year. It's not happened. It's the first time since the Budget Act passed, and as a consequence, it's a requirement that has to be fulfilled.

       It also is not only symbolic in terms of what government does. I think it's symbolic to capital markets and investors all across the country. Whether or not you manage your affairs in a fiscally prudent way sends messages to them as well. And so that is something that they're going to have to proceed with.

       The appropriations bills are closely linked, second or first cousins of the budget process, and again, there's no escape from addressing those issues. And that work is largely undone in terms of reaching final results at this moment in time -- so again, another issue under economy that has to be addressed.

       In reference to the economy, I don't believe that we've seen the end of initiatives to address those issues. Government can't do everything, but I think government can create circumstances within which creative people can do virtually everything -- namely, create jobs.

       And when we talk about tax reform, of course, those issues are going to continue to be debated. I think that there will be discussions that focus upon encouraging reinvestment in infrastructure and in businesses that will have impacts for information technology capabilities in this country.

       And there will be efforts to address pension reform that will allow for those who have been hurt by a downturn in the economy to have considered, at least, the possibility for everything from expanded deductions or exemptions to expanded periods of time for investment.

       There will be efforts, I suspect, to address issues that have to do with education savings accounts and concepts similarly related that will impact families in a way that's real. Having five children who have been going through and are still going through college, I can tell you those impacts are huge for individual families and have to do with their financial well-being. So I think there will be packages like that that will be discussed.

       And then you have to address those issues that impact people in their everyday lives, like a prescription drug benefit. There could have been such a bill already passed by the United States Congress, in my judgment. I know that the form that it took when it came out of the House was not acceptable to the Democratically controlled Senate, which is not altogether an unusual circumstance. Not everything that's introduced by the president is accepted by a Republican House, either. But they work with it. They take it on. They try to manage it, to mutate it, change it, whatever it is that they think is appropriate. But you just can't let it lie there. You can't be just against everything. You're elected to do something. And so I think this provides an opportunity to try to move that issue forward.

       So there are so many things that need to be done first, and then, because of the creativity of all of us and the demand, I think, the imperative for us to continue to address these issues, to do things that government can do to assist the American people, you'll see an agenda that we don't even know yet in terms of its definition, trying to move forward to address those issues.

       Q Raghubir Goyal from India Globe and Asia Today. Governor, can you tell us that -- what role this election played, as well as 9/11, in your concerns and also how it will -- 9/11 will play in the future; and finally, as far as the president -- this victory is concerned, and this election, what sort of foreign policy agenda you think he has which he could not have done in the last Congress that he may be able to do now?

       MR. RACICOT: Well, it's a -- that's a fairly tough assignment -- to speculate about what the president might do, and I don't know that I should enter into those uncharted waters. But let me share with you a couple of my own thoughts.

       I think that we as a nation, people all across the country and, I think, around the world are learning a lot about each other these days. I honestly believe that the entire world order, although it is constantly regenerating itself, I know, over the course of human history, is being reestablished in a very profound and very significant way presently in this day and age, and what we do now is going to be critically important to the future of all people on Earth.

       And I think that what 9/11 suggested to me first was that we are inextricably interwoven with each other. No longer are those things that might occur in what we previously considered to be far away places removed from us. We are, as I mentioned, part of the same fabric of humanity, and as a consequence of that, we are naturally interested in what it is that's occurring in other parts of the world. And I think we have to be particularly strong advocates for freedom- loving people everywhere.

       One of the things that I learned is that -- and I don't know which began first, but -- decency or freedom -- but I don't think you can have one without the other. And what 9/11 suggested to me was, when I saw the cruelty of the acts that were undertaken and then when I realized what it is that occurs in Israel on too many occasions, it suggested to me that there was a lack of regard that I was unfamiliar with for other people. And I think that has been suggested to all of the American people in a way that they haven't experienced before. And I think what they all have realized is that you must preserve freedom if you're going to also at the same point in time preserve decency and the opportunity for people to live in peace.

       And we all have a stake in that in a very real way now, a very human way that we didn't realize before, so we are all keenly focused on what is occurring around the entire planet. And the decisions that are being made now are going to have profound consequences for our ability to continue to become more and more involved with each other, both economically, with international commerce, culturally, socially, spiritually. And we don't know yet all of the directions that will be undertaken or pursued. But I tend to believe that this is a nation of incredibly decent people who want the best things for everyone else and certainly would like to see the same possibilities for promise and hope in other parts of the world that we experience here.

       So I expect that -- and I believe that you've seen people rally around a common foreign policy, which throughout our history has been something that you could depend upon. And I expect to see that in the future. I think it will be very deliberative, but I think it will be very firm. And I believe that the issues will be addressed in a way that doesn't just strike -- or doesn't just hack at the branches; I think that we'll undertake efforts with the international community in a way that strikes at the root of problems.

       And I believe I know the heart of this president, as well as his ethics, and I know he's strong, and I know he's convicted. But I also know that he cares deeply about his fellow citizens in this country, and his fellow human beings around the planet. So I know he'll study carefully, he'll listen carefully, and then he'll make very thoughtful and deliberate decisions.

       I don't know if that's helpful. But I believe that for those who have expressed concern about whether or not this election signaled something different in terms of how this president would proceed, I would suggest to you the answer is no. He will continue to proceed as he has -- in close consultation, working with others in a bipartisan fashion, based upon a set of principles and ethics that he believes should guide us, and with the international community, in a way that is defensible and ultimately makes sense to all of the people on the planet.

       Q (Name inaudible) with the German Southern Zeitung. I have another question on the economy. Right after the elections, the White House announced that it would -- that an economic stimulus package would be set up. Could you give us again your very personal opinion from a Republican point of view, what should be part of that package, apart from tax cuts for businesses that the White House has also mentioned. And do you think that this package might be -- that one might work on this package already in the lame-duck session, given the "soft spot," as Mr. Greenspan said, the economy is in?

       MR. RACICOT: Well, I do not believe it will be just tax cuts. And I wish I could speak to that issue with specificity. I'd like to even venture my own speculation, but it probably wouldn't be a constructive contribution because I'm, in the end, not going to determine that agenda. I'm going to be involved in probably defining for the American people what it is. But it's still very much a work in progress, in my understanding, and I don't believe that the individual components of it have been addressed.

       But I don't believe -- and I want to be careful because sometimes there are concerns about this -- that it will just simply focus upon tax reform. There will be, I am certain, other efforts that move forward to address that particular issue. But you have to remember that the context here for us, as Republicans, is a subscription to the notion that not every thing can be done by government. It's one of our fundamental beliefs that if you provide the freedom and the opportunity for people to do things for themselves, to be creative and to exhibit initiative, that they will. If we can remove obstacles and roadblocks and provide encouragements, I think that's our function. And I believe that everything will be, that's undertaken, based upon those principles.

       And it will, by necessity, need bipartisan subscription because there's always a necessity to have 60 votes in the Senate in order to move things forward. Will that happen during this lame-duck session? I wish that they could move with such speed and dispatch in the United States Congress. I have to confess, I'm not all together certain -- I can't speak with confidence that they can do that presently, with what they have left to do in terms of budget, and appropriations, and issues that concern very urgent matters of well, focused upon homeland security.

       Q Marian Wilkinson (sp) from the Sydney Morning Herald. I wondered if you could share with us your views on what happened in Georgia in terms of both the sweep against the Democrats in the governorship and Max Cleland's position;, whether you think the state and national Senate issues were intertwined there or whether they were separate issues.

       MR. RACICOT: The Republican Party in Georgia, at least a year ago, if not longer, set about to completely reconstruct itself in terms of being fundamentally sound. They concluded that they were not blocking and tackling as well as they had been in the past. And they wanted to put the foundation stones, upon which success could be built, back in place. So they set about to organize almost neighborhood by neighborhood, and to enlist supporters who would become engaged in this process.

       You know, we did some interesting testing -- although I don't know why we needed this testing because it appears probably to be a matter of common sense, but we, nonetheless, did it, because statistics are always persuasive. And we set about to do some testing about some of the things we wanted to do. For instance, we took phone banks, and we realized that when we had a commercial phone bank that we paid for, compared to a phone bank made up of volunteers and fellow citizens, that we could expect a 6 percent higher participation rate in terms of voting by utilizing volunteers. Which stands to reason. When somebody is on the phone, a member of a community, speaking to the issues, not being compensated, it has attached credibility to it.

       So, in Georgia, building upon that kind of principle, that people are important to the political process, they set about to completely remake themselves and to reorganize. And I think that that was profoundly consequential in this race.

       Number two, I believe the issues had great impact in Georgia. For my money, you couldn't find a more distinguished American than Senator Max Cleland. He is a decent man. He served this country. He gave everything to this nation in terms of his service as a soldier. He has overcome incredible challenges throughout his life, and he has served with honesty and integrity in the United States Senate.

       He has been supportive of the president with some issues, most notably those that I mentioned before -- many of those.

       But there has not been an overwhelming endorsement of virtually every issue that came to pass. And I believe the people of Georgia, like the people of Montana, are fairly conservative people, and they could not understand why there was not a Department of Homeland Security that had been created.

       It's not that they're against civil service requirements. You know, this debate has never been about whether or not these employees will have civil service protection. This debate about Homeland Security is whether or not the president will have waiver authority, in defined circumstances, to direct people and resources to an emergency. It's the same authority President Kennedy gave himself by executive order back in 1962 -- or '61. It's the same authority that President Carter had provided by law for every executive department, other than Homeland Security. It just simply doesn't make sense to provide for a Department of Homeland Security, with its emergency response requirements, and not allow for the ability to move people and resources to an emergency like you can with every other department.

       Saxby Chambliss made that argument, and the people of Georgia understood it. And as a consequence of that, I believe they started to have concerns about whether or not the votes of this fine American, this decorated war hero, were matching up with what they thought should be the direction that was pursued in the future. So it didn't have to do with his character or his service. I think that it had to do with his position on issues.

       I think that voters are very practical. I've seen this -- when I used to try cases as a prosecutor, I would work with juries, and I came to believe that they were right every time, even when they ruled against me. If they had the right information, they made the right decision every time. And I think that's what happens with voters. They study carefully. They rise to the nobility of the franchise they're exercising. And when they cast a vote, they're trying to do the best thing that they know how to do for their country, and that's true of both Republicans and Democrats.

       I know there are partisans that probably just vote down the ballot because they see themselves as one thing or another. But I also think that they are overtaken with the weight of the function that they're performing, and as a consequence of that, they get very discerning when they cast a vote.

       And I think that's what happened in Florida. Organization and issues ultimately ended up carrying the day.

       Q Patrick Jarreau, Le Monde, France. When a party is in the position that you are, I mean, controlling the whole main positions of power, the danger is that it could not keep control of its own victory and be tempted to consider that everything is permitted. What are your concerns about that?

       I noticed that you didn't mention, for instance, Social Security reform. Do you think that it would be a mistake to try to move forward with this reform? What are generally your concerns about the mistakes that you or your party could make between now and 2004?

       MR. RACICOT: It's nice to talk to a fellow citizen from France. I can trace my ancestry back there -- (laughter) -- although I'm not altogether certain that everyone wants to know the history of my family, we might have had a few that were a little bit -- a little bit subject to improvement in terms of their behavior on occasion, but it's nice to be able to talk with you.

       I'm most fearful about inaction. You know, I think that when we were talking before, one of the things that I think distinguished the difference between the parties is, and this, I think, is reflected in how the president approached the political process, we set about to be successful, we didn't set about to avoid defeat. And there's a profound difference, a profound difference. We didn't set out to preserve longevity, we set about to get something done. And that's how this president serves in office. And I believe that's how he will continue to serve till the conclusion of his term.

       The only thing I would be fearful of is that if we don't seize the opportunity that's been given us; we asked for it, the American people gave it to us, I believe all of our members are enthusiastic about it, and I believe that they will proceed to move quickly and thoughtfully. But that would be the thing that I would fear the most. I don't think it's going to happen, but that's the thing we have to guard against.

       I think we also have to proceed with humility. You receive humility in this life, it seems to me, by one of two ways. You can either take it on yourself, individually, and circumscribe your own inclinations to proceed thoughtfully, or you can have it visited on you. But my experience in 54 years has been that you're going to get it, one way or another, a good dose of humility.

       And so I think we ought to take that on ourselves and recognize that we have partners in this process, we need good partners in this process and we need to continue to reach across in a bipartisan way -- take advantage of their intuitions. You know, I didn't -- I haven't had every best idea that's ever been advanced; on occasion, I discover one. But there are a lot of good ideas that come from other people and other places. And so we need to continue to take advantage of those.

       So I think those are the things that I'm most worried about, but I don't think either one will happen. I think people will proceed to embrace this opportunity, I think you're already seeing it, and do as much as they can for the American people. And to be honest with you, what I've found is that if you try hard, you're honest and you admit your mistake, the American people are incredibly forgiving and generous in allowing you to continue on with your service.

       So I'm not really worried about any issues, specific issues, or dynamics that are uncontrollable because I think the American people understand them. They have a tremendous capacity to understand. And I think people in this district, and some of those of us who observe and comment, sometimes diminish or underestimate the capacity of the American people to make incredibly incisive judgments about what we're doing. And I think sometimes they are somewhat disaffected and somewhat disappointed by the intramural struggles that go on, and the rhetorical excesses that occur, and by, sometimes, the tactics that are employed that they haven't seen for a long period of time, since they were children in their own lives. And as a consequence of that, they expect us to behave better, and I don't think we ought to ever sell them short.

       So I'm not afraid of issues, nor embracing the opportunity, nor securing enough humility to proceed in a way that allows us to work with others, or issues. I think if we proceed in good faith, we'll be just fine.

       MODERATOR: The gentleman over here -- (off mike).

       Q (Name inaudible) -- with Tokyo Shimbun. As you said, and we all know, that during the campaign, the president has made a lot of efforts traveling across the nation and showing his support for the candidates of the Republican Party. But I don't quite see why it is all right and fair that the president travels by Air Force One and by such spending taxpayers' money into a certain political party. And I understand there is some opposition to this practice. I would like to hear your opinion on this.

       MR. RACICOT: Well, as you know, of course, whether or not you're a prime minister or a president, the fact of the matter is there are special security requirements that have to be observed. And as a result of that, there is an obligation to make sure that methods and modes of transportation are provided, and you just simply can't avoid it. I wish we could in this day and age, but you can't.

       But the rules are such, as a result of that, that you are required to reimburse for the cost of purely political activity. So we reimburse for the political costs of the administration. That means if we go to a rally at an airport, we pay for the cost of that rally, and reimburse the cost of transportation. Now, obviously, they are not on a dollar-for-dollar basis because whoever occupies that office is president all the time, and there's a requirement for safekeeping all of the time, and it simply would be impossible to separate a political figure from the constitutional duties that are being performed.

       And whether or not you want to debate about should the charge for services be higher or not, I think that's a legitimate debate. Should we pay more for a first-class ticket than what we do? I think that's a matter for discussion or discretion. But I can tell you right now, we keep very close track of that. Even if I go over to eat at a business meeting in the White House, we pay for that. So there's a reimbursement mechanism here that spends millions of dollars to make certain that the taxpayers do not underwrite the cost of purely political activity.

       Q Jose Carreno with the Mexican daily El Universal. Two questions. One, in Georgia, the homeland security was an issue, but apparently it wasn't so in the rest of the country. Second, if this is true and if there was no specific issue in the campaign -- to put it that way -- what kind of mandate can the government claim as the winning argument or as the mission to have the next couple of years?

       MR. RACICOT: Well, the issue of homeland security in Georgia was one issue I mentioned. There were others that were debated. But I used that as an example to reveal how Saxby Chambliss ran for office. He ran for office talking about very concrete ideas with a great deal of specificity. You know, previously the argument about homeland security was it's a debate between flexibility for the president and civil service protection for workers. Well, that's not what it was all about at all. That was a fair way of summarizing, perhaps, but when you drilled down into the issue, I think that almost unanimously Americans sat back and said to themselves, "Well, my God in heaven, wouldn't we expect that you'd give the president the same ability as every other sheriff in America has to address an emergency?" And that was how the arguments went. And Saxby made other -- carried on other discussions like that. So it wasn't the only issue.

       In Minnesota I think, again, that there were issues there where Norm Coleman drilled down into them and discussed them in finite detail -- homeland security was one of them, trade promotion authority was another one of them -- and talked about changing the tone. Each of these campaigns have a unique combination between national issue and personality of the candidate and impact upon individual states. There's local circumstances that have a great deal to do with what happens in these races. So if you're looking for a mandate, I've always thought that that was a bit of a fruitless search, to be honest with you.

       I mean, how can you so presumptuously claim you have a mandate beyond the mandate that you receive constitutionally? The mandate you receive constitutionally is to serve with fidelity the people of this nation and to abide by the law. That's a fairly profound mandate, in my judgment, and that's one I think that candidates have now and I think that's the only one they should claim, is to act in good faith and address themselves to the issues of the day.

       I don't think that there is ever any intention to try and seize a mandate or perceive a mandate beyond that. These races, obviously, were very close. We've tabulated the total number of Republican votes, total number of Democratic votes all across the country and, obviously, there are different dynamics that you can consider in this question. But we know we have a Senate that's fairly evenly divided at the present moment. It's not going to be exploded in terms of membership in the near future. And our vote totals reflect fairly close to the ratio that's there in the United States Senate: 53 percent of the people voted for Republicans, and 47 percent voted for Democrats. Again, a great deal of parity.

       So I think the mandate that we ought to take is to get on with addressing the business of the American people in thoughtful ways.

       Q This is Ana Lias Estes (ph) with the Mercurio newspaper from Chile. Many people are referring to the election results as a victory for President Bush that marks the beginning of his reelection campaign for 2004. Do you have any comments on that?

       MR. RACICOT: Yeah, that's interesting to me that that argument is being made, because wasn't it just a week ago that the arguments were, "He's really risking his future here. He's putting on the line all of his political capital."

       The evidence is overpowering that he didn't risk anything, in his mind. He didn't use the same currency; he's not confined by the same currency that we tend to become familiar with here in Washington, D.C. He wanted to get something done, and so he set about to find partners to do that, and that's what has happened.

       I don't think that there's a concern about what might happen in 2004 at this moment. I think that the focus is going to be getting something done for the people of America now, and doing things that make a difference in their lives now. And I know there will be a day to discuss presidential politics, but I've never had a discussion with him about that issue. And frankly, I would be fearful to bring that issue up with him. He's been my friend. We served together as colleagues. I now work for him. I'm not afraid I'm going to be fired, but to suggest that to him when he is so focused on doing what he's supposed to do, I think he would consider highly offensive. So I think you're going to see him focusing on what he's supposed to be doing.

       Q Halid Daoud (ph) from Egypt, Al Ahram newspaper. Just to get you back to the Iraq issue, because at least that's very much of concern for us in the region back there. But you mentioned yourself, in terms of priorities, you spoke about, you know, homeland security, about taxes. And there was like the economy, you know, the same issues that are being raised in campaigns. So -- and at the same time, there was a poll by the New York Times saying that 90 percent of those asked, you know, did not know how their senators voted on the bill to give authority to Bush to wage war. So did you feel from your tours that the American people want to go to war now against Iraq -- I mean immediately? Is that a priority?

       MR. RACICOT: I think the American people reflect the same intuitions that the president has. And that's why you don't hear a lot of loud debate or noise about this issue, because there's such full subscription to how he's handling it. That does not impact the gravity of the issue.

       I think it's an incredibly serious matter of concern for virtually everyone in this country. But I do think they approve overwhelmingly of how Congress and the president have proceeded to this point in time.

       And I believe the American people are just like the president; if there's going to be a requirement of physical force, their belief is that it ought to be the last resort, not the first priority. And that's what I think is the case today. There's great unanimity across the country. As a result, you do not hear drums beating about this issue because everyone knows what has to be done, and knows how it's going to be done, and there's a significant amount of confidence in the way that it is proceeding.

       Q Sir, the president, President Bush, has been given all the credit for the victory in this election. I'm wondering, you, as chairman of the Republican National Committee, and also your organization, what sort of a role -- you know, to what extent you contributed to this resounding victory of the Republicans?

       And also, I'm curious about your personal relationship with the president. You did mention that you were colleagues; you're not afraid of, you know, giving your views to the president. But I'm curious about, for instance, your access to him. Can you pick up the phone and call him and -- anytime you want to? Or, if he's not there, will he get back to you -- (laughs) -- and that sort of thing? Because my only impression is that the Republican National Committee, or, for that matter, the Democratic National, you know, Committee -- not a very strong party organization, for instance, like, the former Soviet Communist party or the Chinese Communist party, or even some of the European party organizations. That's why I'm curious about --

       MR. RACICOT: Well, I would not argue with you about the nature of the party organism itself.

       Q Right.

       MR. RACICOT: It's a different responsibility for me --

       Q Right, right.

       MR. RACICOT: -- because I've always been involved with organizations and institutions that have clearly defined duties, lines of accountability, and jurisdiction that's fairly well clarified. That's not what happens with a political party because it's all based upon people voluntarily making a choice to be a part of it.

       We have 165 members of the board -- in essence it's a board -- of the committee, that make a selection of a person to serve as chair, and that by law, because that's what their bylaws call for, is the authority that they have. And the president's views, obviously, if the president is of your party, are particularly persuasive with the committee members, but at the end of the day, they actually have the legal authority to make that selection.

       We solicit contributions on a voluntary basis. We ask people to work on a voluntary basis. We try to enlist candidates on a voluntary basis. So you're quite right, there's a different essence to the party organization here than there would be with those that you describe.

       In reference to the president being attributed with the credit for victory, he has not sought that, nor would he accept it. He called all of us at the Republican National Committee yesterday and clearly, plainly recognized all of those who were there and all of the hard work, those who work in the basement, with no windows, who talk to our network around the country, those who packed up and left their families for two weeks to work on campaigns in New Mexico or Hawaii -- Hawaii, I guess, wouldn't be a bad assignment this time of year. But nonetheless, they made sacrifices. And so he's never set about to claim any credit; he's set about to thank people.

       And as I mentioned to you before, I don't think it was just his coattails. I think he was critically important to the effort because whenever he's present, obviously, the message that he has can be heard. Secondly, the people who are strong Republicans, who are Republicans at all overwhelmingly support him, and him calling them to their duty was a reminder that was very important. We needed to get our voters to the polls. And his argument about the issues, I think, resonated with the American people.

       So his presence was very, very important to us, but there were other things that were involved here. The candidates, their supporters and the issues were all critically important, too. So I know that those who have the license to attribute credit are attributing all of the credit there. I don't think he would accept it. And I do think that there were other things involved.

       What are we responsible for? I think we're responsible as a party for being good partners to our candidates, who ultimately make the decisions about their campaign, to providing them some resources and some help with organization. And we're one part of the team, but certainly not a dominant part of the team.

       But I do think, you know, as you cause me to think, we had a very high level of teamwork. This president does not tolerate selfishness, gossip or any kind of deleterious influence that can steal away from the capacity of an organization to do its job. And we all know that, and so we make certain that we do not let those kinds of influences that come from our dark side enter into what we're doing, because it's not something he'd tolerate.

       And in reference to the relationship, I don't know, I've never tested the principle of whether or not I can call him any time that I think I would like to or not. He certainly has returned all of my calls, I can tell you that. But I don't --

       Q (Laughs.)

       MR. RACICOT: I don't -- he has a tremendous amount to do. I believe he trusts me, and he has not told me otherwise. And as a consequence of that, with matters that I know have been entrusted to me to be addressed, I simply address them and consult with him when I think it's needed and necessary. But that has not been too frequently. To be honest with you, he's not a political creature by nature. Politics is a vehicle for the expression of his public service. But there's not a daily discussion about what's occurring politically. He's going to do what he thinks is right. How that cuts politically is how it cuts politically.

       MODERATOR: (Off mike) -- the last question --

       Q Just a quick comment. My good friend, Connie Morella, from Maryland, she lost after 16 years, and she had done a great job and served the communities in this area very well. So did Kennedy Townsend also lost. What's the reason behind these two?

       MR. RACICOT: You know, that's what I'm telling you about voters. And I think that's a perfectly good example. Here you have a state that has traditionally leaned Democratic; it's a very diverse state, and yet how could they choose to endorse Bob Ehrlich on one hand and not endorse Connie Morella on the other? She had a long record of service just like he did. It was a moderate record just like his.

       And I think it has to do with a number of variables: the position on the issues, suggestion about solutions for the future, upon the personalities of the candidates, how well did they present themselves during the process, how hard did they work. All of those dynamics come together. And frankly, I can't isolate one of them from another and tell you it was because of this or it was because of that. And those who offer that suggestion I think are overstating their own individual capacity because I don't think people can divine those things based upon their own observations. But I think all of those things go into the mix, and I can't explain it.

       I had the same experience in Montana. When I ran for office, there were five statewide officers; four of them that were elected were Democrat, and one of them was a Republican. And that's my point about voters; they think very carefully and they analyze, and then they draw a conclusion. And I think that's living proof of what I'm saying is true.

       MODERATOR: Thank you very much --

       MR. RACICOT: Thank you very much.