Will The Presidential Election Have An 'October Surpise?'

Background: For those not familiar with the October Surpise theory, Sherman, where does the Wayback Machine take us?

(Bolding mine. Source: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/October_Surprise
Now tinfoil hat political pundits long ago surmiswe that Bush might very well launch an October Surpise just to get elected. One might further surmise that the Surprise would center around the war in Iraq, and/or the war on terrorism (i.e., 9/11).

I submit to the SDMB the first entry worthy of debate:

  1. The Republican National Convention ended this past week. Polling indicates Bush is being afforded The Bounce.

Since the close of the convention:

  1. U.S. Near Seizing bin Laden, Official Says: ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - The United States and its allies have moved closer to capturing Osama bin Laden in the last two months, a top U.S. counterterrorism official said in a television interview broadcast Saturday. “If he has a watch, he should be looking at it because the clock is ticking. He will be caught,” Joseph Cofer Black, the U.S. State Department coordinator for counterterrorism, told private Geo television network.

  2. Former Saddam Deputy Arrested in Iraq: BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Iraqi forces on Sunday captured Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, the most wanted fugitive from Saddam Hussein’s ousted dictatorship, Iraq’s top information official said. Iraqi officials were conducting DNA tests to confirm the prisoner’s identity. U.S. military officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said al-Douri - who was Saddam’s right-hand man before the regime fell - was not in U.S. custody and that they were waiting to hear more from the Iraqis.

Granted, both of theseevents may be pure coincidence. However, given the nastiness of the election, should the tinfoil hats buy more stock in Alcoa because they just might be on to something?

In addition, while Kerry has appartently suffered much concerning his military record and the Swift Boat Veterans attack ads (did anyone see two of those vets just got plush jobs in the Bush VA), Bush’s military records have not been under the same scrutiny by the media?

Until now …

  1. Bush’s National Guard File Missing Records: WASHINGTON - Documents that should have been written to explain gaps in President Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service are missing from the military records released about his service in 1972 and 1973, according to regulations and outside experts.

It is worth noting in the above linked news story the AP has been working to locate these records. The AP reports, “Outside experts suggest that National Guard commanders may not have produced documentation required by their own regulations.”

Then again, many of these just happen to be some of the most crucial of Bush’s military history that strike hard at Bush’s honesty and military fitness.

So we have a set of developing coincidences where on the one hand, the Bush campaign is bolstered by recent events that put a positive spin to the Bush re-election campaign, just at the right time, too. Yet, on the other hand, evidence that might cast some doubt upon Bush and his military career just doesn’t happen to be there.

Pure coincidences tied together with aluminum chaff? Or could it be the flak I might receive from this post because I am over the target, but it’s too soon to tell?

And someday I will surprise myself with accurate spelling, despite the repeated previews!

:smack:

The biggest surprise in October would be if John Kerry’s speech writers finally wrote something meaningful for him to say.

I think that the sides are pretty much set anyway, despite what the polls say. If there is an “October Surprise”, as it were, it would simply reinforce the opinions of the true believers and increase the ire of his opponents. I think it would be blatantly transparent and far too coincidental to be anything but a setup.

Of course, that’s what I’d like to think. Stuff like that has worked in the past, like when LBJ stopped the bombing to try to throw the election to Humphrey. That Humphrey lost the election doesn’t negate the fact that it was one of the closest elections in history when three weeks prior to that Nixon was up over 10 percentage points in the polls.

I’m usually one of the first ones around here to poke fun at tin foil hat conspiracy theories, but I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if ObL is captured between now and the election, I’ll put on my tin foil hat with the best of them.

It would supremely stupid for Bush et al to try to pull this off. As wonderfulas it would be to capture ObL at any time, it would be very risky, politically, to try pull this off. Kerry would be in a bind, though. He couldn’t criticize Bush directly, but his surrogates sure would.

So? Isn’t that to be expected? And what bearing does this have on an O.S.? Seems to argue against one (i.e., he’s got a double-digit lead, and doesn’t need any shenanigans).

This is the obvious candidate. Could it be an O.S.? Maybe.

Who really cares? I don’t see how his arrest has any real bearing on anything. How many people were even aware that he was still on the loose?

Unfortunately, the absence of these records doesn’t prove anything new. One can easily argue that the Natl. Guard officers of that time were simply negligent in their attention to the proper paperwork.

I still really don’t see how any of these items tie together. There’s no conspiracy surrounding the convention bounce. We just had a weeklong commercial for the president; one would expect that to have a positive effect on his poll numbers. OBL has yet to be found/revealed, so that “event” hasn’t happened yet–it’s all the same speculation and bluster we’ve been hearing for 2 years (“we’ve got him cornered”; “any day now”; “yep, reeeeaaaal soon now”). But I think that is a legitimate October Surprise candidate. The capture of Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri is a non-event. It’s a plus for Bush, sure, but not a significant one. Zero combat deaths from now until the election–now that would be an October Surprise that would help him out. And the lack of NG records proves nothing either way.

So, no surprise yet.

Never underestimate the utter, pathetic, completely irritating stupidity of the swing voter.

I don’t get it.

Is GWB so smart to orchestrate multiple international conspiricies or is he dumb as a door nail?

I thought the theory was that Pakistan would feel ever more strongly encouraged to do its part to deliver OBL before the election. I mean, the U.S. wants him anyway, screw the timing, screw the election, but some liberals apparently believe the timing may be orchestrated or “optimized”. The same liberals thought the timing of the Pakistani’s July 29 announcement of the capture of some al Qaeda operative was fishy. And that the Pakistani reward will be the facilitation of some deal for F-16s.

I believe that the tin-foil hat version is that shadowy advisers orchestrate the conspiracies and play Bush like a piano. It’s all connected to the Freemasons somehow.

My version, on the other hand, is less juicy. Quite prominent advisers orchestrate clear plans to screw the world, and play Bush like a piano. No Freemasons anywhere.

Nah, there’s a healthy contingent of swing voters out there. The problem is that in this (and in the last) election, the arguments are very emotional, extreme, black & white sorts of things. That’s why it’s rare to find a large group of “I don’t knows” in poll groups… they’ve heard what a “monster” their current disliked guy is, and how “heroic” or whatever their current preferred guy is. In the course of a week, they might hear that their “heroic” guy is also a “monster”, and then suddenly, the other guy doesn’t look so bad…

That’s my view, anyway. But whatta I know?

No Freemasons? You must be One Of Them.

Tests Show Man in Custody Not Al-Douri

No surpise here, though Bush must be so disappointed!

Amazingly, “October Surprise” has come to mean the opposite of what it meant originally.

During the 1980 Democraticd primaries, whever it looked as if Tede Kennedy might win, Jimmy Carter would announce a huge breakthrough in the Iranian hostage crisis. Carter would then win the primary, but somehow, the next day, it always turned out that negotiations had hit a snag, and the hostages wouldn’t be freed after all!

Carter played such games regularly, and after he won re-nomination, Regan’s campaign team was convinced he’d keep on doing it. Regan’s campaign team COINED the phrase “October Surprise” as a way of saying "Right before the election, watch for Carter to make another dramatic annoucement (perhaps real perhaps bogus again) about the hostages’ release.

Gary Sick and conspiracy-minded Democrats turned the phrase on its head, of course, and try to argue that REAGAN’S team pulled off an “October Surprise” of its own, and cut a secret deal with the ayatollahs, to have the hostages released after Reagan was elected.

Personally, I think it’s far more likely that the Iranians released the hostages for a different reason: they thought (wrongly), as many people did, that Reagan was a warmongering, bloodthirsty loon, and they were afraid of him. Over time, they ;earned that Reagan wasn’t really as dangerous as they’d feared, but in 1980/81, they feared him enough to release the hostages, which they’d never have done for Carter.

Y’all need to study up on your conspiracies a little better. It wasn’t Reagan pulling the strings with Iran it was his VP. The ex-head of the CIA. He was the guy who went to Paris and met with representatives of the Ayatollah to make arrangements for the trade-off of weapons for hostages. Which in turn got Reagan elected. Bush was supposed to become POTUS shortly thereafter but when Hinkly blew the chance GWB just sat back and drove things from the passenger seat. Remember Hinkley had GW’s brother Neil over for supper the night before Reagan was shot.
If y’all recall, Osama’s oldest brother Salaam Bin Laden and GW were in the oil business together in the 70’s where the Bushes fucked the Bin Laden’s out of millions of dollars. Of course with Poppy running the CIA it wasn’t a smart idea for the Bin Ladens to do much about it. So when GHWB needed a pilot who’d keep his mouth shut about the Paris trip who’d he get. He got Salaam to fly him to Paris. he actually testified to the fact that GHWB was in Paris and that he was one of two pilots that carried him there to make the deal with Iran.
In 1988 GHWB was elected POTUS and when Salaam came to visit the Bushes, he had an accident in the aircraft he was flying went down and died in Texas…Osama freaked and now you know the rest of the story.

That my friends is a conspiracy! Most of the info above is fact and can be verified if you like but I ain’t gonna fight with y’all about it. Whether or not the pieces fit is a matter of opinion. BUT…
GHWB was head of the CIA
GWB was partners w/ Bin Laden
Hinkley and Neil Bush were friends and
Bush was at his house the night before
Iran/Contra was real
The hostages were released as Reagan took his oath
Salaam did die in Texas when GWB became POTUS

The only thing NOT verifiable is the claim that BUSH was in paris.
Why? because the witness “died”.

No Masons around? WTF are you talking about…they are ALL masons!

and you call yourself tinfoil hat experts…indeed. :wink: