[summer]

This will be the biggest political story of the year, ney decade, and it will have a massive effect on our governmental system and the 2006 elections.

Yeah, that's what they're all saying in the press.

But I have to say, I read the charges and I think: yes, this guy did a lot of illegal things, and he admits it. He's a Republican and it's good the GOP Justice Dept went after him.

However, I don't understand the following part -- and I realize I may sound like a total idiot for asking this: What is it that he did that is different from lobbyists who are not under investigation?

I keep hearing what this guy did and I think: Yeah, so, what is new about this? Isn't this what happens all the time? (Then, I hear the charges, and I think: I guess it is different here in this case.)

So, I don't really know at this point. Yes, he's obviously corrupt -- but, how exactly is he different from any other lobbyist??? Please clue me in, so I do not remain clueless in this, the biggest scandal of the decade. Thanks.

[oceanview]

I tend to agree with you - we need to see some "quid pro quo" - the promise of an explicit vote for cash.

[Howlin]

What is it that he did that is different from lobbyists who are not under investigation?

I must be an idiot, too, because I'm wondering the same thing.

Surely he did something worse than the rest of them, right?

Or did he just get caught and the rest of them have run to the hills?