The possibilities are numerous, as President George W. Bush juggles multiple foreign threats like North Korea's nuclear tests, Iran's nuclear ambitions and civil war in Iraq, along with mushrooming Republican scandals at home.

"There is a huge potential for some sort of October surprise that changes the dynamic, something that reminds everyone just how unstable the world is," pollster John Zogby said.

The October surprise has a long history in U.S. political campaigns, from the collapse of hostage negotiations with Iran before President Jimmy Carter's 1980 loss to Ronald Reagan to the airing of an Osama bin Laden video before President George W. Bush's re-election in 2004.

The phenomenon is not as prevalent in congressional elections, which involve a collection of individual races and are not as focused on a single event. This year, Democrats must pick up 15 seats in the House of Representatives and six Senate seats to win control of Congress.

In the last midterm elections, in 2002, the plane crash death of Democratic Sen. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota little more than a week before the vote threw his Senate race into chaos. Republican Norm Coleman beat replacement Democrat Walter Mondale, the former vice president.

But the potential for a campaign-shaping event in the final weeks remains a topic of intense speculation.

"We are wary of their October surprise," said New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, chairman of the Senate Democratic campaign committee, which he said was keeping campaign money in reserve for late emergencies.

While most late-breaking events are beyond the control of politicians, plenty of conspiracy theorists expect the White House to make a late attempt to halt Democratic momentum.

'NO SURPRISE'

"It should come as no surprise if the Bush administration undertakes a pre-emptive war against Iran sometime before the November election," Gary Hart, a former Democratic senator and presidential candidate, predicted last month on the Huffington Post, an Internet site.

In many scenarios, the man imagined to be pulling the strings on an October surprise is White House political adviser Karl Rove, the architect of Bush's 2004 re-election.

"Karl Rove wouldn't be earning his pay if he didn't try something that would benefit the White House," said Larry Sabato, a political analyst at the University of Virginia.

Early speculation about a late surprise to benefit Republicans focused on troop pullouts in Iraq, but that has been off the table for months. Another favorite, a plunge in gasoline prices, already happened to little apparent effect.

One Web site ran a contest to pick the most likely October surprise, with the winner being "Iran totally had it coming." The capture or death of bin Laden is another favorite.

Democrats already benefited from a sex scandal involving ex-Rep. Mark Foley, a Florida Republican. News of a federal investigation into Republican Rep. Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania will make his re-election more difficult.

The October surprise phenomenon surfaced in 1968, when President Lyndon Johnson halted bombing of North Vietnam a week before the 1968 election. It was not enough to help his vice president, Hubert Humphrey, beat Richard Nixon.

In 2000, Bush's 1976 drunken driving arrest became public days before the election. Bush narrowly lost the popular vote to Democrat Al Gore but won the Electoral College after the U.S. Supreme Court halted a dispute over votes in Florida.

For those running campaigns, though, strategy and voter turnout efforts trump concerns about a late surprise.

"There is nothing you can do. If something happens, then we'll worry about it," said Carl Forti, spokesman for the House Republican campaign committee.

The survey identifies a "tipping point" as the point at which "attitudes have reached such a high level of concern that political leaders ignore it at their peril."

"This level of public anxiety, combined with Americans' disapproval of the nation's current course, is not something leaders can just dismiss," Yankelovich said.

"It's not just one event or one specific policy that is worrying people. It's Iraq; it's the danger of a terrorist attack; it's energy dependence; it's our diminished reputation around the world; it's the rise of violent Muslim extremism," he said.

This was the third survey from Public Agenda Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index. The first was in June 2005 and the second last January. The latest was the first to include the Anxiety Indicator, which will be a part of subsequent surveys with the same five questions.

The survey finds that slightly more than eight in 10 Americans worry about the way things are going for the United States, and just under eight in 10 feel the world has become more dangerous for the U.S. and Americans.

These are some of the survey's findings that reflect a disconnect with current U.S. government policy:

- 87 percent of Americans believe the threat to national security is exacerbated when other countries and cultures view the United States in a negative light; 78 percent believe their country is seen as arrogant.

- 52 percent believe democracies reduce conflict and violence, but 64 percent believe democracy can't be imposed and that countries have to be ready for it.

- 20 percent think the United States can do "a lot" to nourish a democratic system in Iraq; only slightly more, or 24 percent, feel that creating democracies should be a very important goal for the United States.

On a grading system, fewer than one in three respondents gave the U.S. government an A or B in achieving its objectives in
Iraq or Afghanistan; and fewer than one in four graded A or B on becoming less dependent on other countries for energy and having good relations with Muslim countries.

The survey said energy independence registered higher than any other issue on whether the government should be held accountable for its failures.

Eighty-seven percent said the government could so "something" or "a lot" to decrease dependence on other countries for energy supplies. An increasing number, 41 percent, up from 35 percent in the previous survey, said it was realistic to expect the government to maintain a steady supply of oil at a reasonable price.

The survey, done in cooperation with Foreign Policy magazine, was based on telephone interviews with a national random sample of 1,001 people over the age of 18 between Sept. 5 and Sept. 18. The margin of error for the overall sample is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Aftergood noted that the section of the policy on national security was higher up in the document than in the 1996 policy it replaced, which "perhaps reflects a higher priority" for national security concerns.

The national security section of the policy tasks the defense secretary to "establish specific intelligence requirements that can be met by tactical, operational, or national-level intelligence gathering capabilities." It also gives him responsibility for "space situational awareness," in which capacity he "shall support the space situational awareness requirements for the director of national intelligence."

For his part, Negroponte is instructed to "establish objectives, intelligence requirements, priorities and guidance for the intelligence community to ensure timely and effective collection, processing, analysis and dissemination of national intelligence." But he is also told to "support military planning and satisfy operational requirements as a major intelligence mission," and "provide intelligence collection and analysis of space-related capabilities to support space situational awareness for the U.S. government."

Neither the Pentagon nor Negroponte's office immediately responded to a request for comment.

At present, such travelers typically do not need passports and the card -- if developed -- would create a new travel document that would be more secure and uniform than a U.S. drivers' license or birth certificate, a U.S. official said.

The State Department said the card itself would not contain personal information but -- using radio technology -- would link to a government database that would contain a photograph and biographical data.

The proposal -- which is being submitted for public comment before it can be carried out --- was criticized by Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), a Vermont Democrat, who said in a statement it would "risk the personal information of millions of Americans."

The State Department said obtaining the proposed card would cost adults $45 and children $35. In contrast, applying for a passport costs $97 for adults and $82 for children under 16.