WASHINGTON – In some quarters of the Democratic Party, last week felt like déjà vu.
The party’s vice presidential nominee’s military record was under attack from Republicans — attacks reminiscent of those leveled two decades earlier against Senator John Kerry during his run for the White House.
Democratic strategists who survived Kerry’s attack, however, say the political landscape has changed so much since 2004 that they don’t believe the attacks will have the same resonance.
“It’s a very different world,” said Tad Devine, a senior adviser to Kerry’s 2004 campaign.
Former President Donald Trump’s campaign responded to the selection earlier this month of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as the Democratic vice-presidential candidate by trying to dismantle his military record. Walz served for 24 years in the Minnesota National Guard, but the Trump campaign criticized him for using inaccurate language to describe how he carried a gun in war and when he retired from service.
Kamala Harris’ campaign has weathered the attacks, but some Democrats fear Republicans may succeed in turning Walz’s military service into a liability. Others accused Republicans of trying to “smooth the boat” for Walz, a reference to the 2004 campaign and a sign of the campaign’s continued relevance.
Kerry’s campaign was blindsided in the summer of 2004 by attacks that questioned whether the presidential candidate had earned his many accolades as commander of a fast boat during the Vietnam War. Kerry received three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star.
In 2004, America was embroiled in two wars – in Iraq and Afghanistan – following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts, made his military service a centerpiece of the arduous presidential primary campaign, while point of beginning his nomination speech by saying that he was “reporting for duty”.
Republicans sought to undermine that selling point by raising questions about his service in the Vietnam War. An outside political group, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, led the anti-Kerry campaign, spending millions of dollars on hard-hitting television ads. One see it featured men who served in Vietnam questioning Kerry’s leadership and heroism, as well as his fitness to lead the country; other criticized Kerry’s participation in later anti-war protests.
The ads were effective.
“I remember being in Ohio and hearing that announcement. And I called my campaign headquarters and said, guys, I just heard an ad. And if I heard that ad, I wouldn’t vote for me,” Kerry told NPR in 2018.
Some members of Kerry’s campaign wanted to respond with more force, while others wanted to take a more cautious approach, worried that focusing on the attacks would elevate them.
The campaign pushed back on the press but spent little money on expensive television ads to resolve the controversy.
That apprehension, former Kerry advisers said, caused the public to begin questioning the candidate’s ability to handle national security issues.
Chris LaCivita – a top Trump campaign adviser – was one of the key Republican operatives behind the “fast boat” campaign. When Democrats compared the attacks on Walz to those on Kerry, LaCivita posted on X that the 2004 allegations “have never been refuted.”
“Two things you don’t do are lie about the medals you received and whether or not you watched combat. These are the two great sins. And he’s guilty of at least one of them,” LaCivita told The Associated Press last week.
Several veterans who served with Kerry refuted the allegations in 2004. Matthew Dowd, the chief strategist for Bush’s 2004 campaign, said last week that the “fast boat” allegations were “ almost all lies.”
The Trump campaign sought to take a similar approach in criticizing Walz’s service. Trump’s running mate, Senator JD Vance, led the charge, accusing Walz of lying about his record. Vance, a Marine veteran, also accused Walz of abandoning his unit before deploying to Iraq.
Harris-Walz’s campaign weathered the criticism. A campaign spokesperson told the AP that Walz “misspoke” in 2018 when he tried to advocate for gun control, saying he carried weapons into a war. Walz did not see combat during his tenure in the Minnesota National Guard.
Walz’s first campaign for Congress in March 2005 issued a statement saying he planned to run despite a possible mobilization that could send his soldiers to Iraq. According to the Guard, Walz retired from service in May 2005. Three months later, the Army issued a mobilization order for Walz’s unit. He deployed to Iraq in March 2006. The Harris-Walz campaign rejected Republican characterizations that Walz withdrew to avoid being sent to a war zone.
Walz achieved the rank of sergeant major. But because he didn’t complete some courses before retiring after 24 years in the National Guard, he retired as a sergeant major, a lower rank, for benefits purposes.
It’s unclear how effective these GOP attacks will be. Democrats who worked on Kerry’s campaign said they probably won’t be as potent because so much has changed since 2004.
The main reason: campaigns are now flush with cash, which makes it easier to react.
In 2004, Kerry and President George W. Bush, the Republican candidate, obtained public financing, receiving US$74.6 million each government, preventing them from private donations. The decision, Devine and others said, handcuffed a campaign that wanted to focus on its preferred message.
“We lived in a world of limited resources where we had to make decisions about whether to go on the air now or later,” said Steve Elmendorf, Kerry’s deputy campaign manager. The Harris-Walz campaign “has no such restrictions.”
Public financing is a thing of the past and the Harris operation created an impressive $310 million in July. The Democratic campaign, helped by what President Joe Biden raised before stepping aside, is expected to raise well over a billion dollars.
“If we wanted to respond to these attacks on paid media, we would need to spend the money we would need to in October,” Devine said.
Strategists pointed to other differences in the current environment.
While the “fast boat” attacks were generated by an outside group that relied on advertising, Republicans largely targeted Walz on social media and in interviews. Such attacks may target the Republican Party’s base, but not the independent voters who will decide the election.
Walz is also not the presidential candidate – as was Kerry. Voters tend to focus on candidates at the top of the ticket, something Trump himself has observed.
And then there is the question of Trump. Could attacks on Walz’s 24 years of military service serve as a boomerang against the Republican standard-bearer? The former president was criticized for avoiding military service during claims he suffered from bone spurs.
Despite differences in the two campaigns, veterans of the Kerry campaign said Democrats should take seriously a lesson they learned the hard way: They waited too long to fight back. Kerry pollster Mark Mellman said Democrats should be particularly concerned about attacks on Walz’s integrity, a key selling point of his candidacy. “To the extent that the image is damaged,” Mellman said, “it can be quite problematic.”
___
Associated Press writers Meg Kinnard in Cincinnati and Michelle L. Price in New York contributed to this report
