October Surprise Question

by Matt Stoller, Thu Aug 19, 2004 at 04:51:55 AM EDT

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)

Comments

18 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Re: 1980

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 2004-08-19 07:16AM | 0 recs

permalink

GWHB and the "October Surprise"

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 2004-08-19 02:33PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: "would"

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.

by up2date 2004-08-19 07:42AM | 0 recs

permalink

Not Worth the Effort

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 2004-08-19 07:48AM | 0 recs

permalink

Too late!

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

by rob 2004-08-19 10:52AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: October Surprise Question

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 2004-08-19 08:00AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: October Surprise Question

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 2004-08-19 10:11AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: October Surprise Question

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 2004-08-19 10:38AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: October Surprise Question

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 2004-08-19 10:53AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: October Surprise Question

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 2004-08-19 11:14AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: October Surprise Question

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 2004-08-19 04:31PM | 0 recs

permalink

Interesting

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 2004-08-19 10:47AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: What if...

Why would Bush resign in that case?

by Geotpf 2004-08-19 03:27PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: October Surprises

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 2004-08-19 05:16PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Peace is at Hand

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 2004-08-19 08:29PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: What if...

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.)

by Mathwiz 2004-08-20 11:56AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: "would"

"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.

by Ed Fitzgerald 2004-08-20 08:16PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: October Surprise -- read all about it!

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 2004-08-21 11:14AM | 0 recs