In American political jargon, an October surprise is a news event with the potential to influence the outcome of an election, particularly one for the U.S. presidency. The reference to the month of October is because the Tuesday after the first Monday in November is the date for national elections (as well as many state and local elections), and therefore events that take place in late October have greater potential to influence the decisions of prospective voters.
The term came into use shortly after the 1972 presidential election between Republican incumbent Richard Nixon and Democrat George McGovern, when the United States was in the fourth year of negotiations to end the very long and domestically divisive Vietnam War. Twelve days before the election day of November 7, on October 26, 1972, the United States' chief negotiator, the presidential National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, appeared at a press conference held at the White House and announced, "We believe that peace is at hand". Nixon, despite having vowed to end the unpopular war during his presidential election campaign four years earlier, had failed to either cease hostilities or gradually bring about an end to the war. Nixon was nevertheless already widely considered to be assured of an easy reelection victory against McGovern, but Kissinger's "peace is at hand" declaration may have increased Nixon's already high standing with the electorate. In the event, Nixon outpolled McGovern in every state except Massachusetts and achieved a 20 point lead in the nationwide popular vote. The fighting ended in 1973, but soldiers remained in Vietnam until 1975.
Since that election, the term "October surprise" has been used preemptively during campaign season by partisans of one side to discredit late-campaign news by the other side.
During the Iran hostage crisis, the Republican challenger Ronald Reagan feared a last-minute deal to release the hostages, which might earn incumbent Jimmy Carter enough votes to win re-election in the 1980 presidential election. As it happened, in the days prior to the election, press coverage was consumed with the Iranian government's decision—and Carter's simultaneous announcement—that the hostages would not be released until after the election.
It was first written about in a Jack Anderson article in the Washington Post in the fall of 1980, in which he alleged that the Carter administration was preparing a major military operation in Iran for rescuing U.S. hostages in order to help him get reelected. Subsequent allegations surfaced against Reagan alleging that his team had impeded the hostage release to negate the potential boost to the Carter campaign.
After the release of the hostages on January 20, 1981, literally twenty minutes following Reagan's inauguration, some charged that the Reagan campaign had made a secret deal with the Iranian government whereby the Iranians would hold the hostages until after Reagan was elected and inaugurated.
Gary Sick, member of the National Security council under Presidents Ford and Carter (before being relieved of his duties mere weeks into Reagan's term) made the accusation in a New York Times editorial in the run-up to the 1992 election. The initial bipartisan response from Congress was skeptical: House Democrats refused to authorize an inquiry, and Senate Republicans denied a $600,000 appropriation for a probe.
Eight former hostages also sent an open letter demanding an inquiry in 1991. In subsequent Congressional testimony, Sick said that the popular media had distorted and misrepresented the accusers, reducing them to "gross generalizations" and "generic conspiracy theorists." Sick penned a book on the subject and sold the movie rights to it for a reported $300,000. His sources and thesis were contested by a number of commentators on both sides of the aisle.
Bani-Sadr, the former President of Iran, has also stated "that the Reagan campaign struck a deal with Teheran to delay the release of the hostages in 1980," asserting that "by the month before the American Presidential election in November 1980, many in Iran's ruling circles were openly discussing the fact that a deal had been made between the Reagan campaign team and some Iranian religious leaders in which the hostages' release would be delayed until after the election so as to prevent President Carter's re-election" He repeated the charge in "My Turn to Speak: Iran, the Revolution & Secret Deals with the U.S."
Two separate congressional investigations looked into the charges, both concluding that there was no plan to seek to delay the hostages' release. At least three books have argued the case.
Dukakis got the nomination because of money in politics?
Reagan got the presidency through ignorance and scandal?
media networks are really just profit machines supporting the system?
So what is the take away here? in 45 years, NOTHING HAS CHANGED... fuck the bipartisan government system >.>
+Michael Green i find no citation indicating Reagan threatening the Iranians PRIOR to a barracks bombing in 1983, none... and in the early part of his first term he began sending weapons to Iran for no discernible reason. The Iran-Contra scandal? okay fine, no "conspiracies" to enforce my general distrust of our government? how about solid, PROVEN facts...
The CIA, acting on behalf of British Petroleum, contracted Kermit Roosevelt to overthrow a democratic and peaceful Iran in 1953...because BP didn't want to pay what Iran wanted for their oil.
Since the 30s, the government has been lied to about marijuana by big business and bigotry and remained complacent at BEST and at times much worse...since the 50s,the government has SYSTEMATICALLY LIED AND SPREAD MISINFORMATION about the medicinal applications in spite of Israeli studies making their first major breakthroughs in the 60s and US studies indicating medical applications in the LATE 40s...
in WWII we straight up violated our own constitution and institutionally incarcerated our own citizens based solely on their ethnic origins...or what about The Red Scare, and bloodthirsty McCarthy?
The 2003 invasion of Iraq that was based on intelligence that was FAULTY at best, if not PERJURY...?
IF THE GOVERNMENT WERE A PERSON, ACTING AS A KEY DEFENSE WITNESS, THE PROSECUTOR WOULD ASK TO HAVE OUR TESTIMONY DISREGARDED AS UNTRUSTWORTHY
+William Slaughter right, right,,,, and of course, because the Iranian government consists of such ethical and discreet people, there is no way that they would want to humiliate and embarrass the US (much less an American President) and lie about secret negotiations having taken place - so they must be telling the truth, right??? Bottom line, those fuckin' retards in Iran knew that Reagan would have justifiably turned their country into a parking lot had they tried to pull the same shit with him in office. Furthermore, Reagan stated that he would NOT have agreed to the condition PROHIBITING THE HOSTAGES from seeking compensation from the government of Iran for the incident. The only October surprise in this case was Carter's duplicitous and cowardly act in agreeing to sell out the legal recourse of the hostages to seek damages from the government of Iran. A measure that required passage in both houses of Congress
+Michael Green plus the verification of circumstantial details such as the presence of key officials in both Republican and Iranian parties in select locations together...
I'm not saying its for sure, but they went after Clinton over LESS...and invaded Iraq over EVEN LESS... but this shit warrants a SERIOUS discussion... this and the fucking "letters to Iran" fiasco... BY THE LAW, both the present one and the alleged "october surprise" scandal, ARE HIGH TREASON...
We arrested more people in the last year for Marjuana Possession than ever before, but the last three presidents have all smoked (and there is a good chance the next one will have as well). Israel's first major medical marijuana discoveries were in 1969 and the US first published medical benefits in 1947... But nobody will fucking bat an eye at OUTRIGHT TREASON...
Задайте и вы свой вопрос, это бесплатно!
Адвокат по телефону получит предварительную информацию от вас, после чего может в спокойной обстановке восполнить возможные пробелы и проанализировать
правовые нормы. Он оценит все факты и сможет подготовить развернутую консультацию для вас. По этой причине адвокат является вашим сторонником в
разрешении возникших проблем. Вы сбережете свои средства, обратившись за телефонной консультацией.
Таким образом, обращаясь по телефону к услугам адвоката, вы получаете возможность решить возникшие проблемы с минимальными финансовыми и временными
затратами. В некоторых случаях в дальнейших очных консультациях не возникает необходимости. По этой причине помощь адвоката, оказываемая по телефону,
Мы готовы предложить долговременное абонентское юридическое обслуживание на договорной основе. В состав комплексногоправового сопровождения деятельности организации входит юридическая помощь юридические услуги по всем правовым вопросам, которые могут возникнуть в процессе текущей деятельности. В основе данной услуги лежат принципы аутсорсинга, благодаря чему можно избежать юридических и финансовых рисков. Человек без юридического образования, зачастую, не знает своих прав и не знаком с нюансами законодательства. Поэтому он не может выстроить и четко продумать тактику и стратегию своих действий. Непрофессиональный подход к решению юридических вопросов приводит к плачевным последствиям, вплоть до уголовной ответственности.
Так на практике нередко можно столкнуться с ситуацией, когда водитель виновник ДТП не обратившись за своевременной юридической помощью в ДТП, получает реальное уголовное наказание, которого можно было бы избежать, если бы к делу подключился опытный адвокат по ДТП.
Случались ли у Вас или Ваших близких подобные ситуации? Лучше конечно, чтобы никогда не случались!
и других законов,
сделает анализ практики судов по спорным ситуациям. Наши консультации по телефону и без регистрации пояснят нормы закона и порядок действий
для решения спора.
Консультация юриста включает в себя разъяснения Ваших прав и обязанностей, правовой анализ возникшей ситуации и отношений, прогноз перспектив разрешения имеющихся вопросов, выработка наиболее эффективной тактики и стратегии юридической защиты интересов, предоставление полной и достоверной информации по волнующим правовым вопросам, в частности: о состоянии конкретного дела, о содержании и значении документа, о правовых последствиях определенных действий клиента или третьих лиц, о перспективах развития спора, о возможных мерах защиты нарушенного права и т.п.
Юридическая консультация может быть первичной (предоставляется Клиенту при первом его обращении к адвокату) или вторичной (систематически предоставляется адвокатом Клиенту в процессе ведения его дела и представления его интересов).