I'm a cynic by nature and I really do believe that there are people in the Bush campaign that will say or do darn near anything to win the election. But apparently, there are people such as Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream who REALLY take the notion of Bush manipulating the vote very seriously.

There's even a Web site called OsamaBinLotto.org on which, for $3 a guess, you can wager which of five scenarios President Bush will use next month to stampede impressed or frightened voters to his cause.

You just have to provide the closest time and date. Under a visual depiction of Bush in a magician's tuxedo pulling the head of Osama bin Laden from a top hat, the choices are: 1) Producing Osama, 2) Attacking Iran, 3) Attacking North Korea, 4) Postponing the election due to terrorism, 5) Dumping Richard Cheney as vice president.

If you win, you get half the pot, estimated at $500,000. The rest, according to the sponsors, will go to True Majority ACTION, a fund set up by ice cream magnate Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry's "to compound the power of all those who believe in social justice."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/co...t_id=1000632746

On their website, Editor & Publisher published an article about the history of "the October Surprise" in presidential elections. Now just for the sake of argument let's say the polls continue to tighten. Bush loses both his bounce and his lead in several key battleground states. The situation in Iraq continues to meltdown and Kerry waxes him in the debates. Maybe something entirely different will occur to tighten the race.

1. Would Bush resort to a "October Surprise" to manipulate the electorate?

2. Or is this just liberal cynicism taken to a ridiculous extreme?

Well, of the choices listed in your poll, I have to eliminate a couple as nearly impossible. Postponing the election (short of something like nukes going off in major American cities) would be suicidal for the GOP. There would be, justifiably, a huge backlash against such a move. Attacking Korea would be a disaster. That would make the current war look like a walk in the park. Finding WMD in Iraq or dumping Chaney seem both unlikely and ineffective. Attacking Iran seems slightly more possible but I strongly doubt it, given the controversy over attacking Iraq.

So, either nothing will happen, or Osama will pop up. I'm not quite paranoid enough to think that the GOP already has Osama locked up somewhere, but I would not be surprised if there were a massive effort, using all possible resources, overt and covert, to catch him by late October.

This isn't liberal cynicism taken to an extreme. Frankly, a certain amount of cynicism is completely justified in American politics. The history of Presidential campaigns in the latter half of the Twentieth Century is, in particular, an unbroken chain of Dirty Tricks.

I have to go with the WMD issue, perhaps not directly in Iraq. I think pulling Osama out of a hat will smell too fishy, like he was under wraps already and they were sitting on it. Another military conflict would be a hard sell considering how thin the forces are stretched already. Who the VP is isn't a big enough issue for swing voters and postponing the election is too fishy also.

Unless I can think of something better in he mean time I'm saying that some new "evidence" surfaces that follows the trail of Saddam's WMD into another country in the region.

Oh, here's another similar site...
http://www.nametheoctobersurprise.com/

Whether or not President Bush is losing in October he will...

I voted for suspending the elections. I really think that he wants to be "President for Life."

I don't think he would dare to drop Chaney from the ticket. There must be a reason that he got on the ticket to start with, and it doesn't seem to be good looks, a charming smile, his charm on the campaign trail, ...

I also posted to the link that ChargedDust provided, that a trumped up charge (Treason by providing aid and information tot he enemy, or some such thing) will be brought against Dan Rather to further discredit his National Guard story, and to strike fear into the media at large.

Would Bush resort to a "October Surprise" to manipulate the electorate?

I have to admit this is the first time I’ve heard the term “October Surprise”…but in my defense, until Bush II took office, politics weren’t all that important to me. I continue to be amazed at what this administration does and gets away with. Half the American people have put on their eyeshades, put in their earplugs, and know where to put the cork. If Bush says down is up and black is white, a whole lot of people change what they know to be true in favor of what their “leader” has told them.

Even Bush’s stubborn hard-line “we will not negotiate with terrorists” is proving to be malleable, as the demand by terrorists that two female Iraqi prisoners be released may be met.

Would it have been so awful to release them a week early? In other words, in time to save two Americans from a horrid fate?

So, would Bush resort to an October Surprise? Nothing he has done in the last 4 years proves that he would have any qualms about doing so.

A good site with past "October Surprises"

2. Or is this just liberal cynicism taken to a ridiculous extreme?

No, I don’t think it’s extreme at all. The Bush administration has proven itself quite capable of lying to the nation and presenting it as the God’s honest truth...why would they stop now when it is working so well? As Curmudgeon says, Bush wants to be "President for Life", and whatever machinations or manipulations must be done will be done.
Caught on Film
Bush Watch

Of the choices listed, I chose "none of the above". Not because I think "he won't need it", but none of them are very likely. I doubt that Bush is waiting to announce bin Laden's capture until directly before the election. That would be too suspicious, and he has needed the popularity boost for a while now. If Bush was going to turn over those illusive WMD, he would have done so, or, as the conspiracy theorists would say, "planted them", LOOOOONG ago. I don't think it's likely Bush will ditch Cheney at the last minute (unfortunately). An attack on Iran or the DPRK would be catastrophic to Bush's popularity.

Lastly, "Postpone the Election due to a terrorist threat" has some deja vu elements to it. The Conservative conspiracy theorists during prior elections suggested that Clinton would stage a similar style of "October surprise", and invoke an Executive Order which he signed in the mid-90s, granting the president virtual dictatorial powers in the event of an emergency, placing federal agencies in charge of all law enforcement. Or, he'd launch a full-scale invasion of Iraq. Or, he'd simply ignore protocol and run for a third term, invoking some other Executive order that he'd signed.

This type of speculation is nothing new.

Edited to add: Trip down memory lane, for those who might have forgotten, and the young ones here.

In my opinion, it could go either way. Liberals could be saying this & taking it too extreme, being all paranoid and such, but could also be right and Bush would do such a thing to try to ensure an easy win against Kerry.

Here's my view: If he produces the corpse or a video of Bin Laden in US custody in October, it could backfire and it would drive his poll numbers into the floor because people would see it as a political ploy and that is how the Dems would spin it.

I voted that he would dump Cheney for John McCain or Rudy because Cheney is a hot potato because of the Halliburton thing. I thought Bush was gonna dump him on Thursday night at the RNC.

Though it's difficult for me to do so, I'm going to give Bush the benefit of the doubt and assume he has a sense of dignity, honor and fair play. Of the possible scenarios I listed I chose an strike on Iran or North Korea as the most plausible as it could be presented as part of Bush's pre-emptive first strike policy.

It's also quite possible that terrorists may have a surprise of their own still to be played. Let's hope not.

Five weeks to go. I can see light at the end of the tunnel. Hope it's not another train bearing down on us.

At a fundraiser in Phoenix, Teresa Heinz-Kerry weighed in on this ... I guess it makes sense for Democrats to take this position. This way, if Osama is captured, it feeds the base with conspiracy theories, vs. Bush getting the glory. Probably just good politics.


Sorry - couldn't resist including Teresa's last line about the draft. Love the talking points!

I just hope that they don't have a chance to capture O.B.L. too close to the election. I'd hate to put anyone in the situation where they have to decide between capturing a terror mastermind and holding off until after the election because it would look staged.

However, I think Bush would put in the order to have him captured regardless. He's done too many things that were unfavorable in the polls that he felt was the right thing to do, which I give him respect for. Some presidents waited until their second term to do that...

Even though this post is intended to be humorous, please read the question posed at the end.

I voted if he is losing in October, he WILL capture Osama Bin Laden.

I watched Keith Olbermann's Countdown on MSNBC on Friday night and couldn't help but laughing at his edited recap of Bush's misidentification of Abu Nidal as the killer of Leon Klinghoffer.

The piece Olbermann did linked 9 separate tapes of Bush talking about Abu Nidal as Klinghoffer's killer. Of course, it was Abu Abbas who masterminded the Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking. In fact, Abbas directed operations from a location away from the ship.

Olbermann linked the tapes of Bush saying things like "You remember Abu Nidal, don't you? He's the guy who pushed Leon Klinghoffer overboard in his wheelchair" and "Abu Nidal and his gang were the ones who killed a Navy Seal and Leon Klinghoffer."

The string of video clips Olbermann played was in rapid-fire succession with most clips featuring a coatless, sleeves-rolled-up Bush stumpping before some Republican gathering on the campaign trail.

I went to MSNBC and realized the transcript of Friday's show won't be available until probably Monday afternoon. Go look at it.

Humor: I expect Bush to announce "Osama Bin Laden" was captured last December in a hole 10 miles South of Tikrit.

Mixing up Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas once or twice is understandable but the fact that no one in the Bush White House caught the error through a series of nine different references in different speeches might be a little suspect.

My questions:

Should the Commander-in-Chief of the "War on Terror" be asked to at least not Flip Flop the names of Internationally-known Terrorists?

Would an ad similar to the Kerry Wind Surfing ad be appropriate with Bush saying Abu Nidal/Abu Abbas and then Saddam Hussein/Osama Bin Laden?

After all, it WAS the Republicans' idea to come out with that "deck of cards".

Politics gets more amusing each day.

Were it in Dubya's power, I think he'd do it in a heartbeat.

If the polls are to be believed, a large segment of the American population saying that the invasion of Iraq was not worth the deaths of over 1,000 soldiers means that Bush stands a chance of losing. What would be better to come up with than the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden?

Of course, the capture or death of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the brutal killer of non-combatant foreigners, would undoubtedly serve just as well. The fresh videos of beheadings have created a sense of outrage similar to the outrage experienced as a result of the 9/11 attacks.

I would welcome the capture of both of these affronts to humanity, but neither would make me want to vote for Bush. There are, however, a lot of people out there who are looking for some dramatic sign that Bush is the great leader he is reputed to be by the GOP.

Certainly not. Don't you think that a Democratic incumbent in the same position would welcome being able to pull that kind of rabbit out of his hat?

That Bush's record on domestic issues is so abysmal is his own doing, not merely Democratic propaganda. Bush is staking his reputation on being the War President--capturing one of the kingpins in the Islamic terrorist organizations would be far cheaper than instituting measures to raise the minimum wage, cover 95% of Americans with health insurance, provide additional funding for education, withdraw corporate welfare from companies outsourcing jobs (and doing their banking offshore as well) or getting more law enforcement to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the country. It would be a cheap "fix" to ensure that he got another four years in office.

It's not October yet, but there are a few uncomfirmed reports that Al-Zawarhi has been captured in Pakistan.

Plus some more lower level Al-Qaeda guys as well.

The debates should be an interesting test - whether Bush can make the case that we've effectively dismantled most of the ranks of Al-Qaeda and/or whether Kerry can effectively remind us that we don't have UBL yet, and that it will be job #1 when he takes office, etc.

1. Would Bush resort to an "October Surprise" to manipulate the electorate?

Mount St. Helens Exhales Ash, Steam was an "October Surprise" alright, and locally it has taken over a great deal of the news coverage. It just wasn't the story I was expecting to interfere with the election.

Next comes the question of whether there is enough spin to keep it in the news and affect the election...

2. Or is this just liberal cynicism taken to a ridiculous extreme?

Perhaps...

Will there be enough ash to reach Florida so that GWB can once again divert disaster funds to his brother's state?

Will Republicans point out that the last time the mountain erupted, it was under a Democratic President? Can they claim that it did less damage this time because of active intervention by Homeland Security?

Will "W" notice the smoke and steam on his TV and declare that Al Qaeda detonated a dirty bomb? Will he use that opportunity to test a "bunker buster" nuclear bomb, hoping to force Al Qaeda and other terrorists out of their caves, where he believes that they are living in the mountain?

If scientists are still on the mountain when it blows, resulting in loss of life, will the Democrats try to blame that on the Bush administration?

If the polls show a clear victory by Edwards over Cheney, will Bush seek out a way to blow the mountain during Friday's debate, so that it will pre-empt the 2nd Presidential Debate?

Yes, all of this post is just liberal cynicism taken to a ridiculous extreme... But what if we're right, and you're wrong???