MyDD :: October Surprise Question

October Surprise Question

by Matt Stoller, Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 08:51:55 AM EST

Jack Germond believes that a late October surprise will throw the election to Bush. Is there a surprise in the works? Abu Aardvark is saying that the Arab language press in Pakistan is reporting that "Pakistan has narrowed down bin Laden's location to a specific point along the Pakistan-Afghan border." (via Shaula Evans)

This information isn't in the English language press, for some reason. I wonder if there's a precedent for an October surprise. I know the Union won a big military victory just before Lincoln's reelection, which is the comparison the right likes because Lincoln was seen as a loser until news of the battle circulated.

Tags: General 2008 (all tags)

Permalink :: 32 Comments :: Post a Comment

1980 (none / 0)

"October Surprise" originated with the 1980 election in which the GOP engineered a breakdown in talks between the US and the new Islamic government of Iran.

The GOP engaged in its own illegal diplomacy, and promised the Iranians certain benefits (I forget the exact nature - although the later Iran-Contra scandal points in the same direction) if they would agree to cease negotiations with the Carter administration for the release of American hostages held in Iran. I.e., the GOP wanted the Iranians to keep the American hostages LONGER, for purely partisan electoral advantage.

Shortly after the inauguration, Reagan was miraculously able to negoatiate the release of the very same hostages.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 09:55:34 AM EST

Re: 1980 (none / 0)

They were released the same day as the inauguration, no less. I understand GHWB had more to do with this than Reagan or any of his people.

>Shortly after the inauguration, Reagan was miraculously able to >negoatiate the release of the very same hostages.

by lucky monkey on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 11:16:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

GWHB and the "October Surprise" (none / 0)

GWHB - along with Bill Casey - actually flew to Paris and met with representatives of the Iranian government. The deal was that the Iranians would hold onto the American hostages until after Reagan was in office, and Americans under Reagan would find a way to get them a good deal on arms.supply them with arms.

Ari Ben-Menashe, former Mossad agent, gives more detail in his book "Profits of War" (1991). Ben-Menashe says he was part of a team which worked with the French to arrange secret meetings between George Bush, William Casey, and the Iranians. At one particular meeting in Paris, on October 19, 1980, a final agreement allegedly was concluded: In exchange for a $40 million bribe and future arms shipments, the Iranians agreed not to release the American hostages until the January 1981 Presidential inauguration. This, in fact, did happen; the 52 hostages were released on January 20, 1981. The Iran-Contra setup was a direct result.

Robert Parry over at Consortium News has done the most extensive research on this issue. Kevin Phillips also discusses it in his book "American Dynasty".

by Louise on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 06:33:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe not such a great thing for W? (none / 0)

If the Pakistanis do manage to come up with bin Laden, isn't there a good chance of people saying that Bush's job is done? In the westerns that Rove is scripting this by, a sheriff or gunslinger who gets his man usually moves on. Certainly that would be the smart way for Kerry to play it if it does happen-- "good, now don't let the door hit you on the way out."

The bigger factor that I'm picking up from the poll results posted here and other places is that Bush just has the feel of yesterday's man. The Kerry people need to make that a subliminal theme.

Altoid

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 10:02:56 AM EST

"would" (none / 0)

Jack Germond believes a late-October surprise WOULD throw the election to Bush (but that an early October Osama-capture would not):

"I think Kerry's going to win -- with one caveat: If there's a terrorist attack in late October, Bush will get re-elected. If it happens in early October, people will say, "Wait a minute. Let's think about things."

That seems optimistic (from our side's POV) but plausible.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 10:03:15 AM EST

Re: "would" (none / 0)

I tend to agree with this. If you look at polls around the capture of SH, they spiked but returned to normal fairly quickly. And that was much closer to Bush's high water mark back near the start of the war. Bush's ratings are consistently lower now. The capture could cause a euphoria which may carry him back into office, but only if it is within a a or two of the election. More than that and it's a wildcard. A month or more and it becomes a much smaller factor, IMO.

It Affects You -- Ross

by up2date on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 11:42:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "would" (none / 0)

"I think Kerry's going to win -- with one caveat: If there's a terrorist attack in late October, Bush will get re-elected. If it happens in early October, people will say, "Wait a minute. Let's think about things."

Germond's not the only one who's been saying this, and recently as well.

unfutz

by Ed Fitzgerald on Sat Aug 21, 2004 at 12:16:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: October Surprise Question (none / 0)

I already know one person who so believes that the people will vote Bush out and Kerry in, that if Bush wins the election, for whatever reason, then she's packing up and moving to Canada because this would no longer be the country that represents her and her beliefs. And it's no hyperbole - she means it.

October Surprise or not, come November 2nd, we'll learn whether or not people in this country are content to live as sheep.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 10:09:44 AM EST

October Surprises (5.00 / 2)

August-October 1864: Mobile, Atlanta, "Sheridan's Ride" convince Northern voters that war was being won. Lincoln in a landslide.

September, 1920: Bomb goes off in front of J.P. Morgan offices in Wall Street, killing 33, wounding hundreds. Anarchists blamed, but no individual or group was ever identified. Harding ("normalcy," "Teapot Dome") won in November.

1942: U.S. Army landed in Morocco in the summer. FDR encouraged Army to start its major offensive against the Germans (in Tunisia) before the election. The Army was late by a couple of weeks. Did the Army drag its feet (sort of a negative October surprise)? GOP makes gains in the off-year election.

October 1956: Suez Crisis (engineered by France and England), and Soviet invasion of Hungary. No reason to suspect Eisenhower (he was furious with Anthony Eden), and he probably would have won reelection anyway.

Summer 1964: Tonkin Gulf incident, Tonkin Gulf resolution. LBJ either lied or exaggerated to get his war and ice his victory over Goldwater. LBJ probably would have won anyway.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 10:13:32 AM EST

Re: October Surprises (none / 0)

One more ...

October 1972 -- "Peace Is at Hand," saith Kissinger. Nixon probably would've won anyhow, but not exactly by a landslide.

by Mark Abbott on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 09:16:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Peace is at Hand (none / 0)

I remember this one well. It was my very first vote and I bought that line. My thinking at that time was expressed by the saying popular among my age group, "Don't Change Dicks in the Middle of a Screw." That turned out to be so true. I am pretty sure that is the only Repub vote I ever cast.

by phalanges on Fri Aug 20, 2004 at 12:29:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

hueyplong (none / 0)

I'd be hesitant to cite 1920. Cox was perceived as the loser with or without the explosion.

1864 is definitely the analogy that GOPers will want to emulate. "Success" in Iraq will be tough to fake, so I imagine that the long-ignored (by Bush) bin Laden is the target for a "surprise."

Of course, if Pakistanis do it, won't that just underscore Kerry's point that international cooperation is much better?

Germond is merely putting out the idea of a fall surprise so that no one will be truly surprised when it happens. I say all left-leaning columnists should join in so that people cynically view any such capture, and Bush looks all the more incompetent if it doesn't happen.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 10:53:15 AM EST

Not Worth the Effort (none / 0)

You'll go crazy coming up with whatever loony plan might be used as an "October Surprise". Your imagination can make anything up, and the act of speculating on this distorts your perspective, making the Bush Administration look like comic book villains. They're not, and simplifying them to look like their are only hurts ourselves.

by Inkan1969 on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 11:48:34 AM EST

Too late! (none / 0)

I'm already convinced they are comic book villians... ;)

by rob on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:52:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Forget the Reports (none / 0)

re bin Laden. They are just counter-intell efforts to spook him and get him to move, which is when he would be most vulnerable. If they really had him cornered, they sure as heck wouldn't announce it, especially in this kind of outlet. And don't think for a minute that the Pakastanis are calling the shots on the hunt for bin Laden.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 11:55:44 AM EST

Re: October Surprise Question (none / 0)

1968.

I think this was the real classic "October surprise".

LBJ announced a halt to the bombing of North Viet Nam just a few days before the election, in what was a pretty obvious attempt to get the anti-war voters to hold their noses and vote for Humphrey.

It came damn close to working, too.

by Neal Harkness on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 12:00:09 PM EST

Re: October Surprise Question (none / 0)

I don't think this is the complete story. The way I remember it had LBJ calling for the cease fire because of ongoing negotiations in France to end the war. I think Henry Kissenger was involved in these negotiations before joining the Nixon camp shortly thereafter. Some people speculate that Kissenger sabotaged the negotiations so Nixon would win and then was awarded with a high profile position. After Nixon took office, the negotiations resumed with both sides agreeing on the same plan that had been introduced earlier in the original negotiations.

Obviously the war didn't end here and I don't remember why. I likely have some of the details wrong here, because I'm recalling it from my awful memory, but Christopher Hitchens talks about it in the documentary The Trials of Henry Kissenger.

by rob on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:11:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: October Surprise Question (none / 0)

I found an article by Hitchens in the Feb. 2001 edition of Harper's magazine and now realize the second negotiations didn't begin until 1973. In Hitchen's own words:

In the fall of 1968, Richard Nixon and some of his emissaries and underlings set out to sabotage the Paris peace negotiations on Vietnam. The means they chose were simple: they privately assured the South Vietnamese military rulers that an incoming Republican regime would offer them a better deal than would a Democratic one. In this way, they undercut both the talks themselves and the electoral strategy of Vice President Hubert Humphrey. The tactic "worked," in that the South Vietnamese junta withdrew from the talks on the eve of the election, thereby destroying the peace initiative on which the Democrats had based their campaign. In another way, it did not "work," because four years later the Nixon Administration tried to conclude the war on the same terms that had been on offer in Paris.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1111/is_1809_302/ai_69839383

There's a second part to this article as well.

by rob on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:38:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: October Surprise Question (none / 0)

You are correct about the Nixon/Kissinger manipulation of the Paris peace talks, but that is a separate issue, the way I understand the question.

What Nixon was doing was more along the lines of preventing a dramatic change that would effect the election to his detriment. That's not quite the same thing as an October surprise, although I am sure we can agree that his attempt to keep the war going solely for his own political gain was reprehensible , nonetheless.

by Neal Harkness on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:53:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: October Surprise Question (none / 0)

I see your point, but I consider them both equally deplorable. You can make the same case for the 1980 hostage crisis, where Reagan's people were also preventing a dramatic change.

I was too young in 1968 to remember any details, but I'm not sure I believe the only reason LBJ was trying to end the war was to help Humphrey get elected. LBJ was under enormous pressure to end the war and any pressure on Bush today doesn't begin to compare.

by rob on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 03:14:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: October Surprise Question (none / 0)

I agree, Johnson had mixed motives. He certainly did want to end the war by that point. It's the timing of the bombing halt that is so suspicious.

by Neal Harkness on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 08:31:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LBJ in '68 (none / 0)

Nice catch, Neal. I'd forgotten.

But -- as you point out, it didn't quite work, and the election was very close. If Bush's credibility is as low as LBJ's was. . .

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 12:57:37 PM EST

Another direction (none / 0)

Let's define an October surprise as something dramatic that changes the election dynamics. Then look at today's news.

If the assault on Najaf actually happens, and especially if the shrine is seriously damaged, it will provoke such intensive reactions, both violent and diplomatic, that we will once again be feeling "under attack."

Bush's only strength comes when the issue is feeling threatened. This incredibly stupid move will certainly end up making the US feel threatened. There's the October surprise.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 01:32:08 PM EST

Interesting (none / 0)

I fully expect an "October Surprise" of some sort, regardless if it includes Osama bin Laden or not. This is how these guys works and there may be multiple "October Surprises."

by rob on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 02:47:55 PM EST

What if... (none / 0)

OK, suppose Bush gets an October Surprise, wins with 48% and 5/9, and his polls drop back down over November and December, and continue to drop over the next few months. If Bush resigns, Cheney would be even less popular. If Bush stays in, another undemocratic election would leave him without any remaining percieved legitimacy.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 06:01:43 PM EST

Re: What if... (none / 0)

Why would Bush resign in that case?

by Geotpf on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 07:27:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What if... (none / 0)

I may have overstated the conditions. But I don't think anything can give Bush a clean win; an October Surprise might give Bush a disputed win but that only deepens his problems. By January, before a second inauguration, he would already have lost the perception of legitimacy (the first time around, media lies and Gore's concession gave him a break).

I wonder how the country would react to the situation, knowing he would be in for four years, knowing he fixed two elections, and wondering how the country could accomplish the slightest necessary reform. In some past crises (Watergate) the Republicans have saved their skin by the whole resignation thing. But this crisis is bigger than Watergate already and a disputed election will make it the worst constitutional crisis since the Civil War.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 07:37:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What if... (none / 0)

In all probability -- though I'd like to believe otherwise -- the Pugs would retain control of both Houses of Congress.

Considering that Junta Boy right out of the box in 2001 acted like he had Roosevelt's '36 majority, I don't see him acting any more chastened this time, especially with the pressure of re-election taken away.

I would expect levels of assholery previously unseen in this Republic.

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Aug 20, 2004 at 12:41:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What if... (none / 0)

If I were Bush, I wouldn't be counting on another Supreme Court rescue. Not only did the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision damage the court's reputation, but Bush has done some things (e.g., Guantanamo) that appalled even some of the justices who installed him! I'm pretty sure at least one of the five (Kennedy?) would vote to stay out of a second election dispute.

I do expect Jeb to steal Florida for his brother again. (I always flip FL to red on the electoral vote calculator map. Fortunately, Kerry's been winning even w/o FL lately.)

If you're always playing the fear card, it's a pretty good sign you're not playing with a full deck!

by Mathwiz on Fri Aug 20, 2004 at 03:56:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kerry needs to innoculate (none / 0)

Kerry needs to get surrogates out there in early october (like Dean) to question whether Bush administration is going to 'suddenly" find Bin Laden. Why didn't they find him 3 years ago? why are they playing politics with terror war?

if they do this then any bin laden capture will also come with questions of timing .

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Aug 20, 2004 at 08:29:18 AM EST

October Surprise -- read all about it! (none / 0)

Well I was all set to list the October Surprises through history, but you all beat me to it. Good job, private. If this topic interests you, you need to head on over to the web site that specializes in this speculation -- www.octobersurprise.net !!

These people aren't asking whether W will pull some crooked rabbit out of his hat long about Hallowe'en. They're asking which rabbit it'll be. Terror attack permitted to happen on U.S. soil? Election postponed? Electronic voting machines 'malfunction' in Ohio and Florida? Cheney dumped in favor of Giuliani? Read all about it! (Just don't let Ashcroft find out or you'll be doing your 2005 reading in Guantanamo.)

Of course all these theories are just total paranoia run rampant. I'm sure Bush will simply run on his record and try to win on the strength of his ideas.

home.earthlink.net/~redbat500

by Anonymous Citizen on Fri Aug 20, 2004 at 02:16:19 PM EST

Re: October Surprise -- read all about it! (none / 0)

Of course all these theories are just total paranoia run rampant. I'm sure Bush will simply run on his record and try to win on the strength of his ideas.

Perhaps you were jesting, but I hope you're right! Bush running on his record would guarantee a Kerry victory. Unfortunately, thus far your prediction is untrue, as Bush does everything in his power to avoid talking about his record.

by rob on Sat Aug 21, 2004 at 03:14:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.