Reply #59: Power not evidence is why Kerry dropped out, in my opinion...

[Peace Patriot]

"For your question number 6 I say yes it is very probable that Kerry could drop out even with evidence. However, he dropped out too soon to know what the evidence was don't you think." --proud_Kucitizen

I also agree with this--that he dropped out too early. But I do think Bush had him boxed in--with the assault on Fallujah timed for the week after the election.

I'm coming to the conclusion (for whatever it's worth--and in so far as anyone can know) that Kerry dropped out because of his evaluation of the power situation, not because of any evidence. The evidence for election fraud is overwhelming, and he must have known this even on election night, from his own internal polling--not to mention the results of the unpolluted exit poll data which played on TV all afternoon. Certainly two or so weeks later he knew--when analysis of the exit polls began to be published.

Also, I really can't believe that Kerry and the Dem leadership were not aware of the potential for fraud--Wally O'Dell, etc. (--although their silence about this potential is one of the more mind-boggling puzzles of the last several years.)

So, what were his options? He was facing a BushCon Congress that would never in a million years oust Bush, no matter if you showed them a hundred "smoking guns." The courts? Uh-huh. (Hint: Bush v. Gore.) Journalists, newspapers, the New York Times, CBS? Right. Think about it.

His options were (or what I imagine his options were, from his point of view) leading a revolution, which could well have turned bloody (and not having the power to win it), or shutting up.

He chose to shut up.

I think there might have been a middle way--one that would have been more heartening to the rest of us than his almost total retreat and silence. But then I wasn't the person on the BushCons' target range that day. It might be a bit hard to see your options with those jackals circling round you.