Foley Exonerated!

Over at The Poor Man, The Editors reveals the insidious MSM's shocking manipulation of one humble legislator's perfectly innocent IM conversations.

Comments

Steven Crane | October 3, 2006, 12:01pm | #

article plz

DavidS | October 3, 2006, 12:04pm | #

You tease...

MikeP | October 3, 2006, 12:05pm | #

The article has been exfoleyated.

Lamar | October 3, 2006, 12:05pm | #

Apply directly to forehead!!!!!

wsdave | October 3, 2006, 12:11pm | #

MikeP,

GROAN!!!


Seriously though; Foley has said he's changed his ways, and is turning over a new page in his life.

Joe Dokes | October 3, 2006, 12:15pm | #

Julian Sanchez has just become the world's biggest troll.

Sorry Julian.

Regards

Joe Dokes

Pro Libertate | October 3, 2006, 12:15pm | #

Until the inevitable correction, here's the link.

Joe Dokes | October 3, 2006, 12:16pm | #

Julian Sanchez has just become the world's biggest troll.

Sorry Julian.

Regards

Joe Dokes

MikeP | October 3, 2006, 12:16pm | #

This is what Julian is trying to point to, but he's apparently laughing too hard.

highnumber | October 3, 2006, 12:59pm | #

That's really really funny.

Lowdog | October 3, 2006, 1:28pm | #

Were those actual texts from Foley?

What an idiot.

Pro Libertate | October 3, 2006, 1:30pm | #

Ugh. So that's the kind of stuff Foley was saying? Jesus. I'd like to think that neither the press nor the leadership was sitting on this kind of information. Not knowing for sure is one thing, letting him get away with this is another.

My inclination is to believe that anything overt was unknown for quite a while, tying the hands of both the leadership and the St. Petersburg Times. That's the most likely explanation, because neither benefits by appearing to hold off on revealing information that was obviously not entirely secret. The leadership would be risking cover-up allegations and even the possibility of multiple resignations--way too much to protect a single seat temporarily--and the Times would be risking its credibility and getting scooped (as it was) by trying to delay publication to influence the election.

Egad.

Shelby | October 3, 2006, 1:33pm | #

I guess Foley thought somebody would be cleaning out the tubes. That are the internet, I mean. So there wouldn't be any incriminating reindeer text, or something.

Stevo Darkly | October 3, 2006, 2:00pm | #

I've been trying to post something to the effect of "That was really funny" but H&R's fucking whore servers won't let me.

Aresen | October 3, 2006, 2:07pm | #

PL

I think it's more likely to be a 'deer-in-the-headlights' kind of freeze-up. They couldn't make up their minds as to what to do and may have been afraid to confront him.

If the leadership had gone to him at the first whiff and said "Explain now or quit", then Foley would have been safely out of the picture before the story broke.

Pro Libertate | October 3, 2006, 2:39pm | #

Maybe so. I think what we can be sure about is that everyone will lie about what they knew and when they knew it.

Aresen | October 3, 2006, 2:54pm | #

PL

Politicians LIE? Unthinkable!

How could anyone imagine such a thing?

;)

Pro Libertate | October 3, 2006, 3:34pm | #

Aresen,

I know, I know, what a disappointment. My faith in the goodness of our fearless leaders has been shaken.

The paper is probably lying, too. I'm tired of all the lies. We need truth detectors.