I’ve seen a bunch of articles that seem bewildered at Bush’s recent decision to compare Iraq to Vietnam as a reason for not withdrawing. This Time article is a prime example. I’m tempted to say that the people behind this kind of thing don’t understand the intra-party passions and mythology of the Republican Party, but that seems too simplistic. Maybe they don’t understand it, but it seems more likely that they’re just not choosing to comment on it. Bush knows he’s not going to change public opinion on the war. That’s not what he’s after. Within the GOP, there are a lot of folks who think that our loss in Vietnam was the result of protesters and anti-war folks at home. That’s not just true among the activists. A lot of their voters feel that way. Some combination of anti-war protesters at home plus Democratic incompetence in executing the war were the reason we lost in their eyes. By playing this card, Bush is hoping to put a little fire to the feet of potentially wavering Republicans.  The 30% or so of the population that supports this war are the Republican base. Bush just gave them a reason to really care about winning, something that resonates with their already held beliefs.

I don’t know how this will play out in the real world, but as a concept, it is brilliant intra-party politics. If Bush can convince Republican incumbents that coming out against the war will hurt them with their base more than it helps them with the center, he’ll keep a few of them from defecting. That’s all he needs to do to keep our troops on the ground in Iraq until the end of his term. It will be interesting to see whether or not the high profile defection of Virginia senator John Warner is a sign that Bush’s tactic failed or just a one-off  that has more to do with Warner specifically than Bush’s gamble. Warner’s always been very close to the vets and the active military, many of whom are against this war. Although he’s very conservative, he’s one of those senators who often seems to do things because he wants to be regarded as a statesman rather than a partisan warrior.

National polls are worth watching, but what were the national polls saying in 2004? Howard Dean was virtually a shoe-in for the nomination. He had an aura of inevitability in the weeks leading up to Iowa: a massive fundraising machine, high profile endorsements including ones from Al Gore and several major unions. The day after the Iowa caucuses, Dean was done. It was down to John Kerry and whether or not John Edwards or Wes Clark was going to be able to (first) become the not-Kerry candidate and (second) parlay that into some primary victories. Neither happened and Kerry won the nomination.
In generic opinion polls in Iowa, Edwards is often third to Clinton and Obama. But in a half dozen polls of “likely caucus go-ers”, a pretty well accepted category of methodologies in polling, over the last six months, Edwards has come out on top. Here’s another.