context: Washington Monthly editor Jon Meacham summed it up in a recent unrelated story (7-8/93), when he dismissed a persistent media factoid as``like the October Surprise: enduring yet wrong . ''
answer_0: Significantly, in media circles, it is Steve Emerson's dismissal of the October Surprise that turned out to be enduring-even though much of his evidence turned out to be wrong.
answer_1: Thankfully, in media circles, it is Steve Emerson's dismissal of the October Surprise that turned out to be enduring-even though much of his evidence turned out to be wrong.
answer_2: Therefore in media circles, it is Steve Emerson's dismissal of the October Surprise that turned out to be enduring-even though much of his evidence turned out to be wrong.
answer_3: Theoretically, in media circles, it is Steve Emerson's dismissal of the October Surprise that turned out to be enduring-even though much of his evidence turned out to be wrong.
answer_4: Ironically, in media circles, it is Steve Emerson's dismissal of the October Surprise that turned out to be enduring-even though much of his evidence turned out to be wrong.
answer_5: As a result, in media circles, it is Steve Emerson's dismissal of the October Surprise that turned out to be enduring-even though much of his evidence turned out to be wrong.
answer_6: In particular, in media circles, it is Steve Emerson's dismissal of the October Surprise that turned out to be enduring-even though much of his evidence turned out to be wrong.
answer_7: Clearly, in media circles, it is Steve Emerson's dismissal of the October Surprise that turned out to be enduring-even though much of his evidence turned out to be wrong.
answer_8: Now, in media circles, it is Steve Emerson's dismissal of the October Surprise that turned out to be enduring-even though much of his evidence turned out to be wrong.
answer_9: Originally, in media circles, it is Steve Emerson's dismissal of the October Surprise that turned out to be enduring-even though much of his evidence turned out to be wrong.