Skip to comments.Bush's October surprise - it's coming
Posted on 09/23/2006 11:48:29 AM PDT by Signalman
One hears not an encouraging word about US President George W Bush these days, even from Republican loyalists. Yet I believe that Bush will stage the strongest political comeback of any US politician since Abraham Lincoln won re-election in 1864 in the midst of the American Civil War.
Two years ago I wrote that Bush would win a second term as president but live to regret it. Iraq's internal collapse and the president's poll numbers bear my forecast out. But Bush's Republicans will triumph in next November's congressional elections for the same reason that Bush beat Democratic challenger John Kerry in 2004. Americans rally around a wartime commander-in-chief, and Bush will have bombed Iranian nuclear installations by October.
One factoid encapsulates Bush's opportunity: in a February 14 CNN/Gallup poll, 80% of respondents said they believed that Iran, if it had nuclear weapons, would hand them over to terrorists; 59% said Iran might use nuclear weapons against the United States. A slight majority of those polled, to be sure, did not wish to use military action against Iran, but that should be interpreted as "not yet", for two-thirds said they worried that the US would not do enough to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Americans are a misunderstood people. Only one in five owns a passport, and a tiny fraction of non-immigrant Americans learns a foreign language. US apathy regarding what might plague the rest of the world is matched only by US bloodlust when attacked. President Bush earned overwhelming support by toppling Saddam Hussein, a caricature villain who appeared to threaten Americans, but earned opprobrium by committing American lives to the political rehabilitation of Iraq, about which Americans care little.
(Excerpt) Read more at atimes.com ...
He better hurry up.
Was there an October surprise in 2004? I don't remember one.
He's wrong that Vietnam was the only time we turned on one of our leaders. We turned on Truman during Korea. People forget that Truman is only hailed as a great President after the fact. When he decided not to run for re-election, he had something like 25% approval ratings.
Patton put it best: "America loves a winner, and will not tolerate a loser."
Both Johnson and Truman were seen as losing. Truman certainly WASN'T losing, while Johnson was only at a stalemate, but the perception was that they were losing. That's why they were unpopular.
Bush has the problem of the disconnect between the wider WOT and Iraq. He's winning the WOT, but he's percieved to be losing in Iraq. He's not, but that's not the point, the perception is all that's important.
Focusing on Iran will help, and it's vital that we do that, and not just for internal political reasons. But I really hope there is something that can happen between now and the election in Iraq that will signal 'win' on it.
Maybe George HW Bush will make another SR-71 flight to Iran to commemorate the first "October Surprise" of 1980?
Kerry kindly gave us one by using the fradulant documents.
I guess if you are the conspiracy type, you could say the Bin-Laden tape.
But as far as one of our own? Not really.
I guess the Repubs didn't need one - it was easier to watch the Dems try and spectacularly fail. I can't wait to see what they have planned for next month.
Here in lies the the Rove target. no?
Most likely, you mean. One can tell that they know what's coming.
>Was there an October surprise in 2004? I don't remember one.
Maybe that was the surprise.
Spengler is a fraud.
Hmmm. October surprise, huh? He gives McLame a wedgy and tells him to pipe down?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
This guy is an idiot. Bush will not try to use an attack on Iran as an "October surprise"!!!
He announces that Osama is dead -- 'rats collapse in a heap.
the october surprise will be a sure thing -- too many unknowns in something as heavy duty as an attack on Iran. the demonicrats could cry foul saying it is an election year stunt for example, Iran could get in a lucky retaliation punch, etc.
Iran will be bombed *after* the november election (but, IMHO, it *will* be bombed, make no mistake about that)
There was no need for one, Dan Ratherbiased destroyed the media's ability to throw the election and neutralized any real chance they had to smear the Swift Boat Vets.
Bush's surprise is coming in December, not October.
In December (or really late November), the stepped-up enforcement in prosecution of those hiring illegals will suddenly subside.
Rove, you magnificent bastard!
I'm betting the Iranians will chicken out at the very last minute. They know they're screwed if we attack and will relent by suspending uranium enrichment when they see signs of logistical military preparation underway.
Don't you remember? All of us rightwingers got together a week before the election and inserted those "anti-Democrat" virus bugs in the DIEBOLD VOTING MACHINES!
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
I think Rove (the master mind he is) has already substituted out OBL's son with another person who will sabotage their radical facist network as another October surprise.
Karl Rove invented the Swiftees, remember? ;^]
But what do you think about Bin Laden's desire to push us toward war with Iran? That is troublesome to me --OTOH I don't want them to have nukes, either.
I believe there was an October surprise in 04'. Remember the NYT article and the attendant brouhaha about those lost weapons in Iraq. Not WMD, but supposedly all kinds of weapons that we lost track of and that were being used by insurgents against us.
My Democrat parents for the first time, in 1952, voted for a Republican. The reason? Truman was percieved as not trying to WIN. They had two drafted sons in Korea at the time, and felt that a "Police Action" put them in severe danger.
(Does anyone remember the saying? "Don't sell your war bonds, the Democrats are in power.") From Eagles to worms, in half a century.
After WWII there were three pictures, cut from magazine covers, framed and displayed prominently in our house. FDR was not one of them. They were Ike, Macarthur, and Patton. My parents were of the opinion, as am I, If you are not going all out to win, stay out of it.
Besides that, Republicans in Congress at the time were saying a lot of things that D's say now, that it was 'Unrelated' to our problems with Russia, that it was the 'wrong war at the wrong time,' etc. At the time, Robert Taft was the Republican leader in the Senate, and he was an isolationist. Taft was great on domestic policy, but he was a disaster in foreign policy.
Thank God, Ike was in town. Ike was just as good as Truman in the FP realm, and much better in the domestic policy realm.
Prior to the late 60's, there were wimpy peacenics, isolationists and pacifist in both parties, but the majority of both parties was what would now be considered Hawkish when it came to foreign policy. Kennedy, for example, slammed Nixon for not being hard ENOUGH on communism. That was the debate, not shoud we accomadate or not. The main differences were in domestic policy. Politics might not have stopped at the waters edge, but it simmered down really fast.
It wasn't really till the disasterous '68 convention that the D's went stark raving nuts. Prior to that, we had two pro-American political parties. Now, we only have one.
Why not? If the attack is militarily necessary and is judged as being required before say next June, there is no reason not to move it up to "October" and also get the political benefits. Allowing a Dem takeover of Congress could put such a crimp on the war effort that a vital suppression of Iran would become impossible and Iran would go on to become a Major Power with Hitler Redux at the helm and Israel a desert. Would that not make imperative an "October Surprise?" There is a lot more at stake here than whose guys win the elections and get to hand out the goodies
Yes, yes I agree. America does not hate the Iraq war but it does hate losing. Bring victory in Iran and Iraq will follow.
America will never tolerate a President who is a loser. President Bush has no intention of becoming a loser.
yeah, NYT story about the insurgents and the unguarded ammo dump.
yeah, NYT story about the insurgents and the unguarded ammo dump.
wasn't there the bil laden video repeating all the dem talking points?
How about an indictment of Bill and Hill. Now that would be an October to remember.
It was definitely an October surprise but you have to be a real conspiracy theorist to think the Repubs had anything to do with it.
Something the rest of the world should note and note well.
LOL! Can I join you on the floor?
Like when he gave Cuba to Castro?
Wasn't finding that cop in Maine that looked like Al Gore's brother that arrested W for DWI a big surprize?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.