This is from today's Tribune:<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Miers Firm Received Bush Campaign Payments<br><br>By Frank Bass<br>Associated Press Writer<br>Published October 21, 2005, 2:41 AM CDT<br><br>WASHINGTON -- George W. Bush's rising political fortunes provided a windfall for Harriet Miers' law firm. <br><br>Campaign records show Bush's Texas gubernatorial campaigns paid Miers a total of $163,000 in legal fees, most of it for work done during the future president's 1998 re-election bid. <br><br>Some senators are planning to explore Miers' legal work for Bush during her confirmation process to be the newest Supreme Court justice, but the White House says it won't release any memos detailing that work. <br><br>"I think people across the country recognize the importance of attorney-client privilege," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. <br><br>Reports filed with the Texas Ethics Commission show that two payments of $70,000 were made to Miers' Locke, Purnell, Rain and Harrell firm in Dallas within a month of each other during the 1998 campaign. Another $16,000 in payments were made between March and December 1999. <br><br>The 1998 totals dwarfed the $7,000 Bush paid Miers' firm during his first run for governor in 1994, and are extremely large for campaign legal work in Texas, an expert said. <br><br>"I'm baffled," said Randall B. Wood, a partner in the Austin firm of Ray, Wood and Bonilla, and former director of Common Cause of Texas. "I've never seen that kind of money spent on a campaign lawyer. It's unprecedented." (continues...)<p><hr></blockquote><p>I suppose it's acceptable among Bush's people to spread money around their immediate sphere of influence, but isn't this just getting a little bit weird? The reaction from the Senate to this nomination is the only possible response to this stuff: complete befuddlement. I also love how Scott McClellan and the White House is trying to hide these obvious conflicts of interests in attorney-client privilege. Was this their plan all along? It just doesn't make any sense. A normal, sane person would think that a personal relationship in the past would be enough of a disqualification to strike their nomination off the list.<br><br>This is just insulting.<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey
-- Cee Bee Double-U