Less than an hour ago, the AP reported,

President Bush and other world leaders struggled Sunday to prevent Mideast violence from exploding into a wider war. They urged Israel to show “utmost restraint” and blamed Islamic militant groups Hezbollah and Hamas for igniting the escalating five-day-old crisis.

In fact, the G-8 leaders saw what they wanted in the statement they crafted.

But The Washington Post reported a timeline that has Israel starting the armed conflict on June 13. And it appears that the AP was so intent on making sure those who put the sole blame on Arabs in this latest conflict got their point of view in this story that it forgot to mention one of the most important aspects of this statement, which was in the lede of the Post’s story on its web site this afternoon.

President Bush and seven other world leaders put aside differences and joined together Sunday to call for “an immediate end to the current violence” in the Middle East, demanding that Islamic radicals stop firing rockets at Jewish cities and release captured Israeli soldiers while insisting that Israel halt military operations and free arrested Palestinian officials.

Where and when did this conflict start? Maybe it was just after WW II.

UPDATE: Monday morning I noticed that the same link in this post went to an updated version of the story with a different lede. But bottom line is that the G-8 announcement calls for Israel to return Palestinian officals it arrested earlier this year.

…Bush establishes priorities at the G-8 summit.

For the second day, Bush spent part of it mountain biking.

I guess the Democrats felt that the strategy worked so well in the transportation debate, they decided to use it again against Fairfax Republicans who voted against child care funding.

Virginia Democrats said they had launched a campaign of automated phone calls to voters in Fairfax targeting GOP delegates who voted against the budget amendments.

The calls, sponsored by the Joint Democratic Caucus, are “educational for the constituents, to let them know how their delegate voted” during the worst stalemate in the legislature’s history, said Matt Mansell, director of the House Democratic Caucus. “There’s been a lot of attention paid to those Northern Virginia delegates and what they have and haven’t done for their constituents.”

The recording tells voters that the delegate in question “voted against child care for 1,900 low-income children” and against funding to prevent sewage from flowing into the Chesapeake Bay, a reference to a project in Lynchburg to clean water flowing into the James River.

Help me out here. Why would the people living in Albo’s, Hugo’s, Callahan’s districts care about low-income families? To people in those districts, they’re foreigners — in many ways. Maybe O’Brien’s (especially) and Cuccinelli’s districts have some families impacted in the far eastern regions of their districts. But is this the kind of issue that would move Republicans to pressure their own? Maybe we should ask who’s getting a cut of the robo call expenditure?

OK. Maybe polluting the Chesapeake Bay will get a rise out of some moderate Fairfax Republicans, but not many are really going to get jacked up about a sewage plant in Lynchberg?

Anyone, please enlighten me.

UPDATE: I left out Rust among the targets. With the politics of the Herndon area recently, I’m not sure how well this reverberates there, either.

This one just makes you feel good about government officials doing the right thing.

The Daily Press gives voice to the “mutterings.”

Understand, it’s difficult to find people who don’t like this governor or at least admire his intellectual ability. He’s an open, agreeable guy, with a quick wit and an attractive style.

But is he really up to the job? Does Kaine have the knack for leadership, in a broad sense, to lay out direction for a state facing any number of serious challenges and the political skill to move things forward?

“I’m happy. I have one bit of unhappiness, and that’s that we’re not there yet on transportation. That is a very significant issue and I ain’t giving up on it,” Kaine told The Associated Press.

One bit of unhappiness? Is that how Kaine views the situation out on Interstate 64 day after sweltering day?

It is precisely that kind of language that makes people feel that Kaine attaches little or no urgency to the transportation mess, that he doesn’t, to borrow an overused phrase, get it.

Or care much about getting it, either.

During the late, somewhat extended legislative session, Kaine put out a revenue plan and then watched it die with barely a whimper.

He made a weak stab at the serious business of matching land-use choices to transportation adequacy, smacked into stiff resistance and abruptly walked away from it.

Senate Republicans, who politically laid it on the line for road improvements this year and got zilch, still grouse that Kaine let them down at key moments in the effort.

Now, after the longest budget standoff in the history of the state, Kaine appears rather sanguine about getting a different result out of a populist-led House that remains committed to doing nothing about providing new money.

“We’re going to come back and we’re going to deal with it some more,” Kaine assures us. “I know we’re going to make significant advances even on the funding side, which is the hard piece.”

Oh? Kaine said that before the last go-around, and best of luck to him on doing better during the proposed September special legislative session. But given the hardened political posture by all participants, it’s not likely to happen.

During his many transportation town meetings in December and January, the governor-elect functioned as a listening post, not a leader. You wondered even then whether he grasped, first, the political difficulty of the challenge or, second, the varied breakdowns of the issue from one region to another.

In retrospect, it’s obvious that he didn’t in either case.

And now? Well, the spine of this region’s infrastructure – I-64 – turns into a parking lot on a regular basis. Some of the problem is increased summer traffic, but not all. Not by a stretch.

Stop.

Think.

Consider the tremendous growth that’s occurring on both sides of this highway. What is the plan for dealing with I-64 – not between Newport News and Williamsburg, but between Newport News and Richmond?

There isn’t any plan.

The highway will gradually become the new I-81, a lightly patrolled, truck-infested and fear-inducing mess of a road.

Kaine’s predecessor, Gov. Mark Warner, stumbled early on, but then got angry, took charge and showed he had the stuff to make things happen.

Many hope that the same pattern will repeat itself with Kaine, and, yes, other states and other governors have worse problems.

In the meantime, expect the mutterings to continue.

“”I had to decide, do I want money for roads or do I want money for other stuff? I chose roads,” Mr. Albo said.”

–Del. Dave Albo (R-Fairfax) The “other stuff” was $29 million, enough to build maybe ¼ of an interchange, that he voted to cut from Kaine’s budget amendment that would have made up for federal cuts in child care assistance to the poor.

Hell, just let them carry the toddlers to the construction site. They can climb on the rafters. They’ll have a grand ole’ time.

Lisa Rein reaches way up there to pull this one to the light of day.

Byrne has always represented the Democrats’ liberal wing, supporting abortion rights, a strong role for government and environmental regulation. She has a tell-it-like it-is style that has driven politicians and voters away and rallied them to her, in equal parts, over two decades.

In “equal parts”? Has she done polling on this? Interviewed a scientifically random sample of voters?

When I read stories like today’s AP contribution to pack journalism, I’m reminded of one of Dave Poisson’s best lines in his debate against Dick Black for the eastern Loudoun County’s House seat in Virginia’s General Assembly. Black repeatedly attacked Poisson for not being in lock step with his party’s gubernatorial candidate Tim Kaine on some issues. Black, meanwhile, touted his devotion to every one of Jerry Kilgore’s positions. Poisson rose to respond and said, “One thing great about being a Democrat is that we get to think for ourselves.” The crowd roared its approval.

Democrats in Congress almost unanimously agree on many things: that the war was a mistake (Sen. Joe Lieberman the only noteworthy exception); that Social Security should not be privatized; that deficits need to be addressed; that tax cuts have helped overwhelmingly the well-to-do; that the economic playing filed is anything but level; and on and on. But because they don’t have a single answer as to the timeline for getting out of Iraq — while the GOP has no timeline at all and simply wants to stay the disastrous course — Democrats are headed for defeat in November.

[P]rimary clashes are drawing unwanted attention to Democratic divisions on the war while raising questions about whether the Democrats’ competing factions are, in effect, torpedoing the party’s chances to make 2006 a referendum on Bush’s handling of Iraq.

If I’m a voter unhappy with the war — as an overwhelming majority of Americans are — and hold George Bush responsible for the debacle — as they do — they why would the Democrats, who are not in power and but for a very few, feel we should set some type of timetable for getting out, be the party at risk in November?

Because the press, regurgitating the Bush spin, says so.

Of course, the GOP has no view on when the war should end, except when the mission is accomplished, when they Iraqis step up. Completely lacking in the press are any voices asking very simple questions of the president: How will we know that the Iraqis have “stepped up”? What constitutes a “stable Iraq”? How will we know when we’ve won the war on terror? What will victory look like? Will one terrorist attack in the world every month mean the war is still on? How about one per year?

And again, courtesy of the AP, we get from the press the idea that it is liberals and leftists who want out of Iraq.

Senate primary fights in Connecticut and Washington state as well as a few House contests pit the party’s liberal wing — proponents of candidates who want an immediate end to the conflict — against moderates favored by Democratic leaders in Washington.

Arguably the most high-profile and contentious case is Connecticut, where three-term Sen. Joe Lieberman is under siege for his staunch support of the war and Bush’s national security policies. Liberal bloggers and left-leaning groups are pushing the candidacy of multimillionaire businessman Ned Lamont, who wants U.S. troops to start coming home now.

… Jerry McNerney said it was time to withdraw U.S. troops, and his campaign had the support of proponents of former anti-war presidential candidate Howard Dean. Moderate Democrat Steve Filson opposed an immediate withdrawal and was preferred by House Democratic leaders. McNerney won the June primary and will try to unseat seven-term Republican Rep. Richard Pombo (news, bio, voting record).

Liberals also have targeted first-term Sen. Maria Cantwell (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash., who supported the war but has criticized Bush’s stewardship. She faces challenges from anti-war activists who want U.S. troops out, including one candidate who has the support of peace activist Cindy Sheehan. The challengers lack the cash and name recognition, but their candidacies have caused the state’s political left to turn on Cantwell because of the war. The primary is Sept. 19.

… Eli Pariser, director of MoveOn, a liberal group backing Lamont, said: “We’re trying to play a constructive role in helping amplify the boldest voices and quiet the ones which are undermining the way that the Democrats are different from the Republicans.”

The November elections will be the arbiter on the effectiveness of liberal groups.

“Can they swing general elections is the big question, and so far we don’t know the answer. But they certainly can have an impact on primaries,” said Matt Bennett, co-founder of Third Way, a group of moderate Democrats.

Just how many times can a reporter use the words “liberal” and “leftist” in a story to describe a viewpoint that is indeed moderate or even conservative — the notion that foreign entanglements should be taken very judiciously, while labeling such adventurism as “moderate”?

It is destructive to political discourse to choose incorrect adjectives to describe a viewpoint. Most people consider themselves moderates, rather than radicals or reactionaries, and most Americans are opposed to this war. Have Americans become radicalized?

Finally, this AP story ends with a poor analogy.

If 1968 is any guide, Iraq could continue to have repercussions. Nearly 40 years ago, Vietnam so divided the party that Democrats lost to Richard M. Nixon.

While the anti-war movement was only beginning to get its legs in 1968, the general public was not there yet. Contrary to today, the Vietnam war still had widespread support.

[I]n a poll conducted in February 1968, 25 per cent wanted to “gradually broaden and intensify our military operations”, and 28 per cent wanted to “start an all-out crash effort in the hope of winning the war quickly even at the risk of China or Russia entering the war”. Just 24 per cent wanted to “discontinue the struggle and begin to pull out of Vietnam gradually in the near future”, and 10 per cent wanted to “continue the war at the present level of military effort”.

But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good story?

This may be a Brooklyn race, but it should reverberate in Virginia. It seems the only white candidate running in the Democratic primary to replace the retiring black congressman, who calls the candidate a “colonizer,” raises some important issues for Democrats in general and Virginia Democrats in particular.

The Voting Rights Act addressed the issue of black representation by fostering a plan that has led to many districts being black majorities, and many in the black establishment feel those seats belong to black candidates only.

But some Democratic strategists have begun to question whether strict adherence to a 40-year-old model of minority-dominated districts could be hurting the party in the long term. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said that at one time it made sense for the courts and state legislatures to carve out majority-black districts to break racially discriminatory practices, primarily in the South.

Looking at the map of congressional districts today, Emanuel asked: “Are we at the point in the political process where you don’t need a 70 percent district, but a 50 to 45 district, with the political capacity to be more competitive in surrounding areas, so that more Democrats can win?”

The rapid transformation of urban areas could force Democratic and civil rights leaders to rethink minority districts, voting rights experts say. A combination of gentrification, immigration, intermarriage and a migrating black middle class “means that race just doesn’t have the power that it once did, in these kinds of settings,” said Edward Blum, a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute who has written extensively about minority districts.

In fact, drawing districts that are designed to give black candidates a leg up does a disservice to black interests.

[Black congressmen] are all serving in the Democratic minority. “Remember, the [Voting Rights Act] is about black voters, not black elected officials,” {senior research associate at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies David A] Bositis said. “And black voters are not having their interests represented, although there are more black members of Congress.”

This brings up an even larger issue of how special interest groups can hold the Democratic party hostage. Many single issue groups demand fealty to their point of view and by doing so, fracture the Democratic Party. In this particular case, despite the changing demographics of this Brooklyn district, the attachment to affirmative action among the Congressional Black Caucus is so great that they are willing to destroy a candidate simply because he is white, which to many moderates, Democrats and Republicans alike, sounds like blatant discrimination. Genuflecting at the altar of pro-abortion forces who will not tolerate anyone who favors, say, parental notice, can hurt the party as can damning those who favor gay rights but not mandated gay marriages. We may be a big tent party but with lots of little teepees inside.

I believe there is still a role for affirmative action. I’m particularly supportive of it when it is a voluntary action by corporations, whose employees and customers would well be served by more black perspectives. And the charge that better qualified white candidates are losing jobs because of it rings hollow, as if judging a candidate is like a true/false exam. And I think the Voting Rights Act still has a role to play in preventing the kind of racial politics being played in Georgia, where the state is trying to require certain photo IDs for voters.

But eventually, the Democratic Party will need to figure out how they can respond to the legitimate concerns of moderates who think the mindset of some black politicians is doing the party far more harm than good.

If Virginia Democrats have any input into redistricting in 2010, they will need to face the issue of how to redraw the House of Delegates districts that are now primarily black. Would it improve Democrats chances to break up some of those districts to ensure more Democrats are elected, but perhaps fewer blacks?

From the latest Jim Webb campaign email, here are the purported internal poll numbers:

·Once voters are read a short positive profile of each candidate, the race is in a statistical dead heat (Webb 44%, Allen 43%).
·In the current ballot, Allen leads by 7%, 46% to 39%, but falls short of 50%.
·While Virginians are generally hopeful about the course of the Commonwealth, they are pessimistic about the direction of the country as a whole and feel that the President’s policies, which Senator Allen almost uniformly supports, are not working.
·Four in ten voters say that Allen is doing only a fair or poor job as Senator and over a majority (62%) believes George W. Bush is doing a fair or poor job as President.

Internals must always be viewed with some skepticism, but if true, George Allen is in for a long, hard battle.