I don't know about you, but most people understand that there's a line that an elected official must not cross: Using the power of his/her office for political gain to the detriment of the nation. The qualifer "to the detriment of the nation" put October Surprises in a grey area, since traditionally an October Surprise is supposed to be a good thing. You have to look deeper and ask "what if". For example, if Bush's October Surprise turns out to be Osama bin Laden, you need to ask if delaying producing him and putting him on trial to coincide with the election calendar is in the best interests of the country. I'd say not, because bin Laden is such a monster-under-the-bed that we shouldn't have to worry about him a day longer than necessary. And, with Bush and his gang continuing to trot out the specter of bin Laden to scare the American people, they'd be guilty of lying (again) knowing that bin Laden was already in custody.

At least one October Surprise in history has been a clear abuse of power: The deal by which Iran agreed to delay releasing our hostages until after the election, so as to not strengthen Carter's position and help ensure the election of Reagan. Those hostages suffered several extra months of captivity for no better reason than partisan politics.

To anyone who's capable of making reasoned and fine ethical judgments, an October Surprise is by no stretch of the imagination equivalent to "Fahrenheit 9/11" or any other campaign advocacy piece.