Effects of 'Swift Boat' Attacks on Tim Walz: Insights from a Former John Kerry Strategist
This is not the first instance where a candidate's military background has been scrutinized during an election.
TroibNews 
Bob Shrum understands the experience of seeing a Democrat attacked by Republicans over military service.
In 2004, Shrum was a strategist for John Kerry's presidential campaign when the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group of Vietnam War veterans, questioned Kerry's military record, claiming he was unworthy of his awards, including three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star, and a Bronze Star. After these accusations were publicized through television ads, Kerry fell behind incumbent President George W. Bush in the polls for a time.
Now, Tim Walz, the Minnesota governor and recent addition to Vice President Kamala Harris' presidential campaign as her running mate, is facing similar attacks on his military record. Fellow veteran JD Vance has accused Walz of "stolen valor," alleging Walz exaggerated his service by claiming in a 2018 speech that he carried "weapons of war" despite never being on a battlefield. Vance also criticized Walz for describing himself as a "retired command sergeant major," as Walz retired with the lower rank of master sergeant due to incomplete coursework. The Harris campaign has since adjusted Walz’s bio on its website.
Chris LaCivita, who masterminded the Swift Boat campaign against Kerry as a "chief strategist" for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, is now a senior Trump campaign aide. This raises the question of whether the Trump campaign is using the same tactic against Walz.
POLITICO Magazine reached out to Shrum, who has extensive experience in Democratic politics, to gain insight from his experience with the Swift Boat attacks and to hear his advice for Walz's campaign.
Shrum stated, "I wish we had [responded to the attacks] immediately, and I wish we’d done it hard."
The interview with Shrum, edited for length and clarity, covered several points:
When asked if the attacks on Walz's military record reminded him of Kerry's campaign, Shrum responded that it did and suggested that it indicated Republicans had exhausted new strategies. He expressed doubt that the tactic would succeed, noting that while the Swift Boat attacks unsettled Kerry's campaign temporarily, voters ultimately believed Kerry could be commander in chief.
He advised Walz and the Harris-Walz campaign to continue responding to the attacks while also pivoting to highlight Trump's military avoidance, specifically referencing Trump's medical exemption for bone spurs during the Vietnam War. Shrum emphasized the importance of not remaining solely defensive but using the opportunity to critique their opponents.
On the effectiveness of these strategies, Shrum observed that similar attacks had occurred against Kerry despite his Vietnam service. However, he noted that attacks on military service can be appalling, recalling the unfounded criticisms of Kerry despite his commendable military record.
Shrum reflected that the Kerry campaign should have countered the Swift Boat attacks more aggressively and immediately but faced financial constraints due to federal funding agreements. Despite Kerry's push to respond, the campaign chose to conserve resources for the final stretch of the election.
Shrum pointed out that the Harris-Walz campaign does not face the same financial constraints and has ample resources and surrogates to defend Walz vigorously. He noted that Walz’s favorability ratings are improving, and Vance’s are declining, with cross-party condemnation of the attacks.
When asked if LaCivita’s involvement in the current Trump campaign surprised him, Shrum expressed no surprise, remarking that LaCivita is reviving a tactic he should be ashamed of but is not.
Finally, Shrum suggested the attacks might backfire on the Trump-Vance campaign, as many veterans would recognize and respect Walz’s 24 years of service in the National Guard. He argued that veterans would likely be repelled by the attack, understanding the value of long-term military service.
Rohan Mehta contributed to this report for TROIB News
In 2004, Shrum was a strategist for John Kerry's presidential campaign when the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group of Vietnam War veterans, questioned Kerry's military record, claiming he was unworthy of his awards, including three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star, and a Bronze Star. After these accusations were publicized through television ads, Kerry fell behind incumbent President George W. Bush in the polls for a time.
Now, Tim Walz, the Minnesota governor and recent addition to Vice President Kamala Harris' presidential campaign as her running mate, is facing similar attacks on his military record. Fellow veteran JD Vance has accused Walz of "stolen valor," alleging Walz exaggerated his service by claiming in a 2018 speech that he carried "weapons of war" despite never being on a battlefield. Vance also criticized Walz for describing himself as a "retired command sergeant major," as Walz retired with the lower rank of master sergeant due to incomplete coursework. The Harris campaign has since adjusted Walz’s bio on its website.
Chris LaCivita, who masterminded the Swift Boat campaign against Kerry as a "chief strategist" for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, is now a senior Trump campaign aide. This raises the question of whether the Trump campaign is using the same tactic against Walz.
POLITICO Magazine reached out to Shrum, who has extensive experience in Democratic politics, to gain insight from his experience with the Swift Boat attacks and to hear his advice for Walz's campaign.
Shrum stated, "I wish we had [responded to the attacks] immediately, and I wish we’d done it hard."
The interview with Shrum, edited for length and clarity, covered several points:
When asked if the attacks on Walz's military record reminded him of Kerry's campaign, Shrum responded that it did and suggested that it indicated Republicans had exhausted new strategies. He expressed doubt that the tactic would succeed, noting that while the Swift Boat attacks unsettled Kerry's campaign temporarily, voters ultimately believed Kerry could be commander in chief.
He advised Walz and the Harris-Walz campaign to continue responding to the attacks while also pivoting to highlight Trump's military avoidance, specifically referencing Trump's medical exemption for bone spurs during the Vietnam War. Shrum emphasized the importance of not remaining solely defensive but using the opportunity to critique their opponents.
On the effectiveness of these strategies, Shrum observed that similar attacks had occurred against Kerry despite his Vietnam service. However, he noted that attacks on military service can be appalling, recalling the unfounded criticisms of Kerry despite his commendable military record.
Shrum reflected that the Kerry campaign should have countered the Swift Boat attacks more aggressively and immediately but faced financial constraints due to federal funding agreements. Despite Kerry's push to respond, the campaign chose to conserve resources for the final stretch of the election.
Shrum pointed out that the Harris-Walz campaign does not face the same financial constraints and has ample resources and surrogates to defend Walz vigorously. He noted that Walz’s favorability ratings are improving, and Vance’s are declining, with cross-party condemnation of the attacks.
When asked if LaCivita’s involvement in the current Trump campaign surprised him, Shrum expressed no surprise, remarking that LaCivita is reviving a tactic he should be ashamed of but is not.
Finally, Shrum suggested the attacks might backfire on the Trump-Vance campaign, as many veterans would recognize and respect Walz’s 24 years of service in the National Guard. He argued that veterans would likely be repelled by the attack, understanding the value of long-term military service.
Rohan Mehta contributed to this report for TROIB News
