I thought I should point out different types of biases that I've started to verbally recognize. This may be relevant to the debates going on. I'll use that setting as an analogy.

The most important is the bias of understanding. People have different levels of knowledge concerning issues, and it becomes very important to them for the politician to make statements that agree with the issues people know the best. For example, I understand economic policy much, much better than I understand foreign affairs. I have read and thought quite a bit about national health care, education, and welfare, but I am not very informed about Iraq. Hence, I am less opinionated about Iraq, and hence, I care less about Iraq. Why? I don't know what to think about. I have no points of reference, no underlying theory to check against, no store of knowledge to check claims with. In theory, whatever that means, I do not care less about it. In practice, I do.

The second bias that is related to understanding is the bias of interest. It goes hand in hand with understanding when understanding is present, but continues when understanding fails. For example, my brother likes military history, generals, wars, and so forth. He is very adamant about his views on Iraq because closely related issues occupy much of his mind. This leads him to care more about those issues than others, even though it is obvious fallacy that simply because it is more important to him in terms of interest it is in fact more important for the country, Iraqis, or whatever else.

In each case, a mental inclination dependent upon the person is used to (unconsciously) justify importance independent of the person. I think that is bad. Also, I've only thought of these two.. which are really pretty similar. I'll have to think about it more. You should help!