Friday, August 9, 2024

1964, 1968, 1980, and now apparently 2004 – – the ever-growing list of historical analogies for this election

From Josh Marshall.

The Post’s and the Times‘ pieces on Tim Walz service record are more egregious and spurious than you’re probably able to imagine. The accusations come from two members of his unit who are clearly MAGA partisans and who floated them during his 2022 reelection campaign for Minnesota governor in coordination with Walz’s Republican opponent. The attacks aren’t just “like” the Swift Boat attacks from 2004. They’re literally the work of the same guy. Chris LaCivita was the strategist who ran the Swift Boat attacks in 2004 and cut the commercials. He’s now the co-manager of the Trump campaign. He started this and then handed it off to Vance. As David noted, even Politico headlined it as a “Swift Boat” attack. Politico!

The accusation, such as it is, is that Walz retired from service just before his unit was deployed to Iraq.

The first thing to note here is that career military people can retire. (Walz served for 24 years.) That’s how it works. If you’re needed, there’s something called stop-loss orders, which the Pentagon issues during periods of acute need; they not only prevent retirements but can involuntarily extend people’s period of enlistment. These were issued repeatedly during the Iraq War and in the years of active U.S. military involvement in Iraq. But the accusations break a lot further than this narrow point on any close inspection.

Walz served for 24 years in the Minnesota National Guard. He was never in combat but had multiple overseas deployments. He actually retired at 20 years but returned to service after 9/11 when he re-enlisted for an additional four years. (Presumably, if he were looking to get out of foreign or war zone deployments, he wouldn’t have done that.) The Trump campaign and the two accusers from Minnesota make it like Walz put in his papers just in advance of deployment. That’s not true. Walz successfully ran for Congress in 2006 and there’s abundant evidence that at least from early 2005 he was discussing with confidants in his unit whether or not to retire to run for Congress. His newly announced campaign put out a press release in March 2005 which said that it was possible that “all or a portion of Walz’s battalion could be mobilized to serve in Iraq within the next two years.” Walz officially retired in May 2005 and his unit got initial call up orders in July 2005. They were eventually deployed to Iraq in March 2006.

The similarities are striking – – the same game plan executed by the same operative and probably partially financed by the same cartoonishly evil billionaire – – but the differences may be more substantial. The big three are this is not 2004, the object of the smear is not at the top of the ticket, and Walz is not Kerry.

It would be wrong to say the press definitely won't fall for this again, but it might do a better job this time. Memories of the original Swiftboating are still fairly fresh in the minds of most political journalists and while the New York Times and the Washington Post may have "learned nothing and forgotten nothing," a number of prominent voices and publications seem to have a firmer grasp on history. It is too early to protect how this will play out, but there is reason for optimism.


[This is a tweet that the Trump campaign put out, but if you listen to the audio, it actually works better as a Harris ad. These guys aren't very good at this.]



More importantly, the NYT and WP don't have the control over the narrative that they did 20 years ago. The Harris phenomenon (and I think we reach the point where we can safely use that word without hyperbole) happened almost entirely in spite of the narrative laid down by the New York Times and Associates. According to the version we were reading in the paper of record, Kamala Harris was a terrible politician and going directly with her without any kind of mini-primary or open convention would lead to disaster. Everything that has happened since Joe Biden stepped down suggests that these once respected institutions have lost their relevancy.


There will no doubt be stumbles over the next 90 days, but at the moment, Harris momentum is remarkably strong and for a scandal involving not her but her VP pick to be substantial enough to derail the campaign, it would have to be nothing short of a career ending. Vance has been implying that Walz would soon drop out, but unless there is another heavily weighted shoe yet to drop, that would seem to be nothing but wishful thinking on the part of the Trump camp.

The attack itself is far less suited for its target this time around. When you list what people associate with Walz, military man maybe breaks the top four after dad, high school coach/teacher, and cheerful but aggressive campaigner. I think I've seen as many pictures of him bird hunting as I have of him in uniform, so soldier might come in at number five. By comparison, John Kerry was the war hero turned war protester. That was his story, that was his persona, and that was the argument for making him the Democratic nominee in 2004. He even showed up in multiple early Doonesbury when the strip talked about the antiwar movement.

He had a great number of other impressive accomplishments, but it was the biography that people remembered. The argument for nominating the man was that his unique experiences made him the perfect candidate to take on George W. Bush while the country was still dealing with the shock of 9/11. If these attacks made people question his standing as a war hero or, as Josh Marshall often points out, simply made him look weak for not being able to defend himself, the case for John Kerry as president took a serious blow.

There's one other key difference between 20 years ago and today, one that could make the attacks more effective but which also greatly increase their risks to the Trump campaign. In 2004 the Bush campaign kept the Swiftboaters at arm's length. They got the benefit but none of the blowback. This time is different. Vance is the face of Swiftboating 2024. Having the VP pick actually making these charges gives papers like the NYT and the WP an excuse to play the story up, but if there's a backlash, it won't be directed at a third party.





Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)