This term refers to a series of political ads run in the Campaign of 2004 by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a 527 group, against Democratic nominee John Kerry. In 1968, Kerry enlisted in the U.S. Navy and was sent to Vietnam to pilot a swift boat in the Mekong Delta. Kerry received three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and a Silver Star for his heroic actions during the war and for the injuries he sustained. He later became an outspoken critic of the war when he returned from Vietnam. Republican nominee George W. Bush sat out Vietnam, serving instead in the Texas National Guard, a stateside role that virtually guaranteed that he would not be sent into combat overseas. The Swift Boat ads depict Kerry’s military service in a less-than-favorable light, questioning whether Kerry fabricated events to earn the medals he was awarded and highlighting his later criticism of the war. The initial ad ran in three states for a week, but the ensuing controversy virtually guaranteed that most voters had some familiarity with the contents of the ad. Kerry, who had been touting his military service during the campaign, was slow to respond to this criticism of his record, and the group quickly followed up with even more provocative ads. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth received most of their funding from a Texas supporter of George W. Bush, leading to suspicion that the Bush campaign was involved in the ad campaign. Former Bush opponent John McCain was an early and adamant critic of the Swift Boat ads, although he also defended Bush’s military leadership during the campaign.
The term “swift boating” has come to be used as shorthand for a campaign ad that is both negative in tone and also takes a candidate’s perceived strength and finds a way to portray it as a critical weakness. For example, in 2006, a former Marine and Iraq War critic, Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania, faced a reelection campaign in which the legitimacy of his Purple Hearts, and ultimately his patriotism, was called into question. Like Kerry, the group criticizing Murtha was not associated with his political opponent’s campaign but, rather, was an ideological organization operating independently of any campaign. In the Campaign of 2012, GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s presumed strength, his private-sector experience running Bain Capital, was turned into a liability by the Obama campaign, which raised questions about the ethics of Bain when Romney was at its helm, accusing Bain of creating domestic unemployment and outsourcing jobs. This fed the Democrats’ narrative that the Republicans were the party of the affluent elite and were ill prepared to deal with the growing gap between the haves and the have-nots. And it distracted voters from the Republican Party’s argument that after four years in office, Obama had failed to produce the economic recovery that he’d promised.
Candidates appear to be vulnerable to swift boating by opponents who themselves have significant, visible liabilities that they expect to be exploited during the campaign. Opponents who are concerned about their own weaknesses may be more likely to cast the first stone, in the form of a swift-boat-style attack. Such a heavy-handed strategy may not be necessary when faced with a weak challenger who is unlikely to pose a serious threat. So an additional corollary may be that stronger candidates may, ironically, be more vulnerable to swift boating.
See also Negative Campaigning
New York Times. Swift Boat Articles Archive. http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/swift_boat_veterans_for_truth/index.html. Accessed September 5, 2015.
Rainey, James, and Michael Finnegan. “More Bow Shots Fly in Swift Boat Controversy.” Los Angeles Times, August 27, 2004.
Swift Vets and POWs for the Truth, Ad Archive. http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=Ads. Accessed September 5, 2015.
Washington Post. “Campaign 2004 Archive: The ‘Swift Boat’ Controversy.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2007/11/19/LI2007111900952.html. Accessed September 5, 2015.