I’ve argued often that the preponderance of media bias is against liberals, not for them. It’s just that the right has been much more effective in raising that old canard to keep the mainstream press on the defensive, ever eager to bend over backwards to prove they are not liberal elitists.

But here’s a case of bias that sullies all journalism. Apparently, small town newspapers are upset with Wal-Mart for not using them for advertising. So their association writes an open letter to Wal-Mart that, in effect, tells the big-box retailer: if you want us to cover stories about you, you better advertise with us. That may not be the intent, but that sure is a valid interpretation, and one that debunks that old saw newspapers want to perpetuate that there is a “Chinese wall” between advertising and news.

Looks like the patchwork, band-aid approach to transportation is the best we can expect this year, as the Senate majority Leader John Chichester threw up his hands and declared that the long-awaited Senate plan will be much like the House’s and the Governor’s. But wait ‘til next year.

Chichester yesterday proposed returning to the transportation trust fund revenues from an existing tax on automobile insurance premiums, beginning July 2006. He said that would annually generate at least $106 million, money lawmakers have used for other purposes.

…Several years ago, legislators passed a law stating that an estimated one-third of total insurance-premium taxes would go to the transportation fund.

Since then, lawmakers have actually transferred the money only once.

…However, Chichester and other Senate Republican leaders are urging an off-season investigation of increasing transportation needs, largely focusing on how to pay for them. It would fall to the 2006 General Assembly to enact a remedy.

Chichester, Senate Republican Majority Leader Walter A. Stosch of Henrico and Sen. Charles R. Hawkins, R-Pittsylvania, head of the finance subcommittee on transportation, did not specifically rule out higher taxes.

“I’m not saying no new taxes or increase them,” said Hawkins, arguing against another “quick fix, rabbit out of the hat.”

… Chichester’s tactics in this year’s transportation debate are changing as suddenly as the weather. Before the session he said the Senate would largely react to programs advanced by delegates and Warner; last week, he said the Senate would have a plan of its own.

The latest about-face, Chichester said, reflects divisions among senators on how to proceed and that “I was in bed for four days” — a reference to his bout with flu.

At the core of the Senate’s latest position: cleaning up the highway department’s books; preventing the use of road dollars for other purposes or commandeering for transportation general-fund revenues that support education, human services and law enforcement.

While many have advocated protecting the Transportation Trust Fund from raids by lawmakers to fund other budget items, Chichester wants to prohibit using general funds for transportation.

House Speaker William J. Howell, R-Stafford, repeated he has no problem using general funds for roads: “The general fund is general. To say you can’t use it for other purposes defies the purpose of the fund.”

The Chichester approach may help the other party, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch report.

The approach outlined by Senate Republicans generally reflects that of the likely Democratic nominee for governor, Lt. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine. The presumed Republican nominee, Attorney General Jerry W. Kilgore, opposes new taxes for transportation.

So, here are the three proposals:

Senate: Sen. John H. Chichester (R-Stafford) proposes creating a permanent funding source for transportation by using taxes on auto insurance premiums, for about $106 million a year. A law passed in 2000 shifted those taxes to transportation, but tight budgets have since led lawmakers to spend the money on education, health care and other needs.

Gov. Mark R. Warner: The Democratic governor proposes spending $824 million on roads, transit and matching funds to encourage public-private partnership. Most of this is one-time-only spending.

House: Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford) proposes spending $938 million. Like Warner’s plan, it’s mostly a one-time infusion of money, but it also includes about $100 million a year collected by increasing fines for drivers who speed and break other road rules. Howell’s plan also would divert the tax on auto insurance premiums this year to transportation projects, but he has made no guarantees that he would do so in the future.

Let the games begin while the traffic stalls.

Update: I neglected originally to add two op-eds on transportation matters. One complains about the mess but offers no solutions; the other, by Del. Vivian Watts (D-Fairfax), lays out the issue with cogent facts.

There are at least now two bills on the charter schools idea — The Senate’s SB 1327 and the House’s HB 2866. But the may be just “placeholders” while the debate ensues. The sponsor of the Senate bill, Thomas Norment (R-James City) says of his bill, “I haven’t even read it, yet.

Del. Mitch Van Yahres (D-Charlottesville) wants to address the ratio of in-state to out-of-state students.

[Van Yahres] said UVa, Virginia Tech and William & Mary probably will be required to cap out-of-state enrollments at 30 percent to 33 percent of their student bodies. “Those three schools have the advantage of bringing in out-of-state students who are profitable,” Van Yahres said. “Out-of-state students are paying 120 percent of the cost of their educations. That’s a 20 percent markup, which is great” for the schools that attract them in large numbers.

The Hampton Roads Daily Press’ editorial page generally likes the idea and opened its op-ed pages to both pro and con opinions.

Doctors and lawyers agreed to a compromise bill aimed at reducing physicians’ insurance premiums.

Certain elements seem silly, like requiring lawyers to get an outside expert to opine that malpractice occurred; try winning a case without it. Other provisions make sense, like allowing a doctor to express sympathy for an unfortunate outcome without it being used against her as an admission of culpability.

But nowhere in the story is the phrase “insurance company.” I wonder if they aren’t using the president’s campaign against “frivolous lawsuits as a cover for gouging doctors.

The bill passed a senate committee. A vote by the full senate is expected next week.

A bill that would ban the use of cell phones by teen drivers passed the Senate Transportation Committee yesterday on a 13-0 vote with one abstention (Sen. Yvonne Miller (D-Norfolk)). The bill was incorporated into SB 966 , which also makes certain penalties primary ones, meaning a police officer can stop a teen for, say, driving with too many underage occupants, instead of needing a primary cause, such as speeding, before issuing citations.

But the cell phone ban advocate, Sen. Bill Mims (R-Loudoun) makes some assertions I’d like to see proof for.

Youngsters have not developed the ability to multitask, Sen. Bill Mims, R-Leesburg, said while defending his bill that bans drivers younger than 18 from using a cell phone – even one equipped with a hands-free set or speaker phone – while driving.

“Their attention is on that phone call even if it’s a hands-free device,” he said, which could distract them for the two or three seconds it takes to avoid an accident. “That amount of time is sufficient for a dangerous accident.”

Adults, he said, have developed the multitasking ability and can refocus their attention almost immediately from the phone conversation to the dangerous situation.

Qualifying as an adult (with somewhat arrested development), I think adults aren’t much better at multi-tasking, at least with cell phones while driving. I do it and wish I didn’t. I clearly know my attention is diverted. It’s not the act of holding a phone, although with a manual transmission I literally can’t drive, hold the phone and change gears. My reaction times to certain events is definitely hampered by the phones. I don’t suffer from ADD. … (What was I talking about?) … And I don’t think I’m alone on this issue. Still, with three teenage drivers in my house, I welcome the bill. (Donations to my automobile insurance relief fund can be sent directly to my insurer.)

The Virginia Senate passed three bills that would facilitate the use of red-light camera, devices some say infringe on the rights of law breakers.

And now they have more ammunition: a study that shows the cameras cause more rear-end collisions at intersections.

Critics seized on the study’s finding that crashes involving injuries increased slightly after red-light cameras were installed at intersections.

In Fairfax County, 10 of 13 intersections studied showed an increase in crashes after the cameras were installed. Eight of those intersections experienced an increase in crashes with injuries.

On average, total annual crashes in the 13 intersections rose to 20 from 18, and crashes involving injuries increased to eight from 6.5.

Supporters of the cameras, however, said more research is needed to determine the relative severity of injuries with and without the cameras. Sen. William C. Mims, R-Loudoun, an advocate for the cameras, said injuries from rear-end crashes tend to be less severe than “T-bone” collisions commonly caused by red-light violators.

Sen. Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, R-Fairfax, argued that traffic safety can be bolstered by increasing the length of yellow lights at problem intersections, avoiding the upswing in rear-end crashes caused by cameras. “We’re trying to attack a problem the wrong way,” he said.

Constance Sorrell, chief of systems operations for VDOT, said the increase in crashes at intersections with cameras is no surprise. She said a similar pattern occurs when traffic lights are first installed at intersections.

There’s the answer: Let’s get rid of traffic lights altogether.

Two researchers, Forrest M. Council and Bhagwant Persaud, reach a more nuanced conclusion. They found that rear-endings had gone up nearly 15 percent after cameras were installed in seven cities, with injuries from such accidents up 24 percent. Right-angle crashes declined by 24 percent, with injuries down nearly 16 percent. Weighing the economic impact and severity of injuries, they found the overall effect positive.

The chances of Fairfax County being able to enact an ordinance protecting the rights of gays are slim now that a subcommittee of the House Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns voted 7-2 to kill HB 2116. Subcommittee votes are not recorded, but reports say two Democrats voted against it. The Dems on the committee are Hall, D.C. Jones, Armstrong and Ware. Anybody know which voted against it?

Virginians will continue to be able to pack heat in day care centers when the Senate’s Committee for Courts of Justice rejected by one vote SB 743. Here’s the vote:

YEAS–Saslaw, Marsh, Norment, Howell, Lucas, Mims, Puller–7.
NAYS–Stolle, Quayle, Edwards, Reynolds, Rerras, Blevins, Cuccinelli, Obenshain–8.

I guess gun owners want to ensure they can defend themselves against attack by the baby brigade.

Meanwhile, the same committee approved SB 807 that would require gun buyers at gun shows to undergo background checks. Sen. Fred Qualye (R-Chesapeake) who voted against SB 743, sided with the gun control advocates.

YEAS–Saslaw, Marsh, Quayle, Norment, Howell, Lucas, Mims, Puller–8.
NAYS–Stolle, Edwards, Reynolds, Rerras, Blevins, Cuccinelli, Obenshain–7.

The Washington post has a story about the “Acknowledged Inaccuracies in 2004 Exit Polls.” But the reasons are still unclear. They seem to want to blame Republican voters’ reluctance to talk to exit pollsters.

The differences between the final exit poll results and the vote count revived criticisms of the exit polls fueled by consecutive election-night debacles in 2000 and 2002. They also fueled assertions that the exit poll results were accurate and that it was the vote count that was flawed or deliberately manipulated to deliver the election to Bush.

The analysis found no evidence of fraud resulting from the rigging of voting equipment, a contention made repeatedly by those who question the 2004 vote.

[Report authors] Lenski and Mitofsky compared the exit-polling results with the final vote tally in 1,460 precincts where interviews were conducted and vote returns were available.

“Our investigation of the differences between the exit poll estimates and the actual vote count point to one primary reason: in a number of precincts a higher than average within-precinct error most likely due to Kerry voters participating in the exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters. . . . While the size of the average exit poll error has varied [in past elections], it was higher in 2004 than in previous years for which we have data,” Lenski and Mitofsky wrote.

But they acknowledged in the report that they remain at a loss to explain precisely why Bush supporters, or Republicans generally, were more likely to refuse to be interviewed than Kerry voters.

I have another question: Are Republican voters less likely to participate in an exit poll than, say, a telephone poll? That they were in exit polls seems a pretty easy answer with, as the authors admit, no evidence to back it up.

A couple of weeks ago I commented on the increasing tendency of Bush appointees to suffer amnesia at their confirmation hearings. Dana Milbank and Charles Babington address the issue in today’s “Washington Memo” column.

Gonzales used the words “I am not at liberty to disclose” at least 10 times; “I do not recall” or “I have no recollection” six times; I did not “conduct a search” seven times; “I am not at liberty [to discuss certain matters]” 10 times; and “I have no present knowledge” seven times.

The last one I especially like. I wonder if that means he has “past knowledge” but at present won’t recall it.

I wonder what conservative readers of this blog might think.

“It’s a little bit appalling,” Bruce Fein, a Reagan administration Justice Department official, said of the Bush administration’s dealings with Congress. “A conservative should want greater congressional scrutiny — it limits government, and it checks folly.”