Rapidly shifting loyalties

Over the last 24 hours or so, I have been a bystander to a passionate debate about Jason Atkinson's position on immigration. Apparently, Jason stumbled over an answer on the Lars Larson show yesterday, and there were two results:

1. At least one of Atkinson's opponents jumped on it by claiming Atkinson is "soft" on illegal immigration and their guy is the "only candidate who is willing to stand up to illegal aliens!"
2. Several Atkinson supporters started rethinking their support for him based solely on this issue.

As someone who does not consider immigration to be the end-all and be-all issue in the Republican Party (or any party, for that matter), I'm having a hard time understanding the hubbub. (Please, before you lecture me on my naïvete -- I do understand why it's important, I just don't lose sleep over whether Politician A has proposed a program to give all immigrants a full-time job with no tax obligations, while Politician B plans to send them all home and build a 600-foot barbed wire fence around our country.)

However, I certainly do understand how one issue would make me rethink my support for a candidate. For me, that issue is abortion. If I learned today that Jason Atkinson secretly supported abortion on demand, that Planned Parenthood was one of his biggest supporters, and that he'd been making up a pro-life perspective to gain my vote, I would dismiss him as a candidate -- as soon as I verified the facts.

You see, Atkinson's track record doesn't support such a switch on abortion, so such a revelation would be worthy of investigation and explanation, but it would not mean I would immediately withdraw my support. Not until I verified the information. Not until I heard directly from the candidate. If I didn't hear from the candidate, that would be enough to drive me away.

Earlier, I said immigration isn't my most important issue, but it's not my intention to dismiss those who feel passionate about it. If someone told my I shouldn't put abortion so high on the priority list, I would probably dismiss them outright. I would just say this: just as Atkinson's record doesn't jive with a sudden pro-abortion position, it also doesn't support the idea that he would be soft on immigration. If he stumbled over an answer, he would be obligated to explain himself at the next opportunity. And anyone who held immigration as the top issue would certainly be within his or her rights to withdraw support if that explanation was insufficient.

But how to approach that discussion? Do you assume he's guilty of your worst fears, and it's up to him to convince you otherwise? I'd argue that such a perspective is unproductive. That perspective is for people who have a track record that differs with yours but who suddenly display a primary-season conversion (cough**ron saxton**cough), not a single mistake in the course of a long campaign.

Frankly, I'm surprised such a mistake hasn't happened prior to yesterday (and maybe it has, but I wasn't paying attention at the right time). These guys criss-cross the state, speaking several times a day, putting tens of thousands of miles on the campaign vehicles, sleeping too-few-hours in small hotels or crashing on a friend's couch. If I held that kind of schedule every day for six months, I'd be lucky to figure out my name, much less have a coherent answer to a question from a radio host who seems constantly to be looking for a fight.

But back to the question: how to approach this discussion? Rather than making demands, spreading rumors or immediately pulling my support, I would rather:

• Contact the campaign directly and ask, respectfully, if he can clarify my concerns;
• Hold off on snap judgments;
• Listen with discretion to those who share my passion, but don't necessarily have all the facts.

Some people will read this and feel like I'm lecturing them, and I acknowledge that it does come across a bit in that way. I apologize to them -- I don't necessarily like to be lectured at, either. This is mostly my effort at venting some steam after a long day of listening to venting from all corners.

Final questions: if you're not going to support Jason Atkinson over this, what's the alternative? What happens when the next candidate disappoints you? What if that candidate wins, and then disappoints you?

To paraphrase someone I respect: I have offered my support for Jason Atkinson because I believe he is the best candidate of the three Republicans. Not just in pro-life issues, not just in immigration issues, but in several areas. That support came after thinking about it for a while (I think I was No. 16 on the Blogs for Jason list, which now has almost doubled). I didn't offer that support contingent on Jason running a perfect campaign. I didn't offer it contingent on my whims. I offered it for the long-term. And a misstep or two along the way is not reason to take my toys and go home.

Are you in it for the long-term?