Old--

One more thing:

The most significant fact is obviously that in Studds' case, since the leadership did not force him out, it was up to the voters to decide.

I'm so sorry to tell you that that's the way democracy works--it matters remarkably little what you think should have happened. You can cry and moan about the unfairness of it all you want--but the Massachusetts electorate had the right to reject Studds--or not to.

They chose not to.

Foley could have stuck it out (no pun intended), refused any attempt of his leadership to force him to quit--and taken his chances with his constituents.

He chose not to.

Too bad for your conspiracy theory.