Well, Mark Warner has officially gone from being a scared of his own shadow to being my hero. Not that they are two ends of a continuum, I realize. Sure, his leadership on the budget issue went a long way toward changing my opinion of him, but a fall over the handlebars sealed the deal.

Having suffered three broken collar bones, a cracked scapula, numerous broken ribs and a concussion that striped me of hours of my recollected life — all thanks to my suicidal (says my wife) bike riding — I can say, Governor, I feel your pain. And your embarrassment. I cracked several ribs years ago when I stood and looked back over my shoulder to make sure my kids were still behind me while simultaneously braking with my left hand, the one that controls the front brake. As Warner learned yesterday, that means over the handlebars we go.

So Governor, join the ranks of the slightly suicidal and occasionally stupid cyclists. We probably deserve each other.

Michael Getler of The Washington Post has been pretty good about responding to FAIR’s complaints in the past few weeks, the latest being the Downing Street Memo-gate. Dana Milbank, whose work I think is top notch, seems a bit defensive in his reply to Getler’s saying the memo may have deserved wider coverage.

“While you have been within your rights as ombudsman over the past five years to attempt to excise any trace of colorful or provocative writing from the Post [Milbank wrote], you are out of bounds in asserting that a columnist cannot identify as ‘wingnuts’ a group whose followers have long been harassing this and other reporters and their families with hateful, obscene and sometimes anti-Semitic speech.”

Touchy!

Apparently, Milbank thought all who believe the memo was indeed news, should be lumped in with Democrats who held a press conference about it. Milbank, in his column, which should have more leeway for opinion than a news piece, showed his disdain for the group.

A search of the congressional record yesterday found that of the 535 members of Congress, only one — Conyers — had mentioned the memo on the floor of either chamber. House Democratic leaders did not join in Conyers’s session, and Senate Democrats, who have the power to hold such events in real committee rooms, have not troubled themselves.

OK. So the memo is not news to Milbank, but what also struck me was the anti-Semitism charge. Here’s what Milbank had written.

The session took an awkward turn when witness Ray McGovern, a former intelligence analyst, declared that the United States went to war in Iraq for oil, Israel and military bases craved by administration “neocons” so “the United States and Israel could dominate that part of the world.” He said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

“Israel is not allowed to be brought up in polite conversation,” McGovern said. “The last time I did this, the previous director of Central Intelligence called me anti-Semitic.”

Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), who prompted the question by wondering whether the true war motive was Iraq’s threat to Israel, thanked McGovern for his “candid answer.”

OK. Jim Moran is involved, so it must be anti-Semitism.

Howard Dean was quick to disavow the group.

There are plenty in the blogosphere who agree with Dean: The group must be anti-Semitic.

Now you can argue that Ray McGovern doesn’t know what he’s talking about. And you can surely argue that those who think Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks are loony.

But why is it that if one ever charges that the government of Israel — not the citizens and certainly not all Jews — might be conspiring with the U.S. to transform the region in their image and to their liking you must, ipso facto, be anti-Semitic. As one commentator on Daily Kos put it, “Israel has successfully wrapped themselves in the protection of persecution, meaning, criticize us, you are anti-semetic (sic). It is the SAME way here, when if you criticize Bush, you hate America.”

Maybe these kids will start a movement about their right to hear information, that whether adults like it or not, they need to know.

One thing that shocks me when we talk to our teenagers about sex is their telling us how shocked their friends are that we talk to our three about it.

What does this article add to the political debate? There is nothing new here. No news, just the trading of the same old charges. Why invest reporters (this time it took two of them to tell us nothing new) in something like this when they could be investigating the real problems Virginia is facing and outlining some of the solutions we might implement and then getting candidates to answer questions about such options.

The Post actually did give us a great article today about HOT lanes, though it could have given us more info. on whether such HOT lanes actually reduced congestion on the regular lanes. The local angle story didn’t do that, either, but gave us an insight to how the slugs feel about HOT lanes. They make legitimate points. Remember, the idea that’s pitched to us about HOT lanes is that while it will improve the commute times of those who pay the tolls, the rest of are supposed to get relief because HOT lanes takes traffic off regular lanes.

Maybe Mike Shear, Chris Jenkins and the rest of the Virginia political reporters will use the info. on HOT lanes to probe the candidates for in-depth answers. But it seems such a waste of talent to have Shear & Co. writing these useless stories.

You see it starts with late-term abortions, but then goes here.

After reading this Columbia Journalism Review Daily entry about Nancy Grace, I can’t quite figure whether they like or hate her. Can you?

…the editorial writer(s).

I guess they can’t stand that Michael Schiavo was right.

Raising Kaine has details on a new gubernatorial poll.

UPDATE: The link to the poll publisher revelas this nugget:

In the race for Governor, 10% of Republicans are undecided along with 5% of Democrats.

That’s got to worry Kilgore, but not sure it helps Kaine. Potts? Well, the percentage who said “other” actually fell from 5% two months ago to 2% now. Russ who?

Three days after only one challenger succeeded in ousting any of the 19 GOP delegates who voted for the tax increase last year(and that seemed as much on social issues as taxes by the challenger’s own admission), The Washington Post is the only newspaper in the state today to run a story about revenue projections running ahead of predictions. Only the Richmond Times Dispatch editorial page, which harps on taxes, felt the need to mention the surpluses.

That may be because the surpluses have been monthly occurrences for this budget year. Maybe the Post missed that.

I suspect that The Post may be congenitally incapable of seeing any election for state or local office but as a fight over taxes. Even Shaun Keeney, the anti-tax challenger to Bobby Orrock admitted, “We did focus on the tax hike, and no one cared.”

But the Post cares. It’s interesting to note that the sub-head in the story that appeared in this morning’s paper read “Growth Reopens Debate on Increases.” Well, of course, growth doesn’t have the same vocal chords you and I do, so it would be hard for Mr. Growth to debate the increases. In the online version, however, the sub-head reads “Gubernatorial Candidates Reopen Debate on Need for Last Year’s Increases.”

I found that curious. Why would Tim Kaine want to reopen that debate? Well, he didn’t, according to Delacey Skinner, the Lt. Governor’s spokeswoman. When called for a comment, Kaine’s office apparently responded as she is quoted in the story, but, Skinner told me, she nor anyone else with the campaign sought to reopen the debate.

But Jerry Kilgore wanted to. So The Post wanted to, too, I guess. The Post may be aware of the thin ice they skate on by harping on the tax issue. If there’s another reason for changing the headline, I’d like to hear it.

If we are to debate what we want the candidates to do with our money when they get into office and how much of it they want from our pockets, that’s fine. But the debate shouldn’t be about taxes first, but rather how we spend them. Why can’t The Post get that? Most Virginians, according to polls, say they support the tax increases of ’04.

One thing missing from the coverage is the extent to which the surpluses are news. Have we had other periods of sustained revenue growth followed by unexpected declines that put pressure on the budget. Of course we have. But how long were they, how predictable were the downturns and what happened when they came? All of that would be grist for a news story.

So why must The Post continue to harp on taxes, when even candidates who ran against the increases say no one cares?