Caving in on principles

UPDATE: please read this post in conjunction with what I wrote below.

From today's Oregonian, we learn that abortion is an issue in the Republican gubernatorial primary. We also learn that Kevin Mannix is trumpeting his endorsement from Oregon Right to Life (ORTL).

No surprise in either case. Abortion is frequently an issue in politics, and Mannix has every right to use that endorsement to his advantage. What surprised me was how Ron Saxton impacted the ORTL endorsement process, and what it says about ORTL. Yes, I mean it the way I said it -- Saxton impacted ORTL, not so much the other way around, and (from my perspective) not for the good.

In 2002, Saxton shrugged off ORTL. As the story in the O indicates, Saxton didn't even bother filling out the ORTL questionnaire. (According to Northwest Republican, Saxton said in 2002 that he would oppose limitations on abortion, including partial-birth abortion.) As a result, not only did ORTL endorse Kevin Mannix for governor, but it actively opposed Saxton. One could argue that Mannix had a built-in advantage because he was the only pro-life candidate among he, Saxton and Jack Roberts, but regardless, Mannix won and Saxton was third.

This year, ORTL acknowledged that Jason Atkinson was a solid pro-life candidate, but the endorsement again went to Mannix because ORTL felt he had a better organization and a greater chance of winning the primary. However, Saxton apparently learned a lesson from '02. He knows his pro-choice position hurt him in the primary, and he wanted to make sure that didn't happen in '06. Even though he had to know he wouldn't get the endorsement, he met with the organization this year and (while maintaining that he is essentially pro-choice) pledged to sign pro-life legislation on partial-birth abortion, parental notice, and informed consent/waiting periods.

And because of that, ORTL decided it wouldn't fight so hard in the 2006 primary because "We were afraid of him winning" in 2002, Atteberry said of Saxton in the Oregonian story. "We're not afraid of him this time." Atteberry taped a message for Mannix to use in a phone campaign, but said her organization is not putting as much money into this year's race for governor.

So essentially, pro-choice Ron Saxton told Atteberry just enough to get Oregon Right to Life to go easy on him.

One could argue that ORTL is making a conscious choice to be a positive player in Oregon politics, and I would count that in their favor -- after all, one of the things I like about Jason Atkinson is that he's refusing to stoop to negative campaigns while his opponents are flinging mud.

But I guess I question the priorities of Oregon Right to Life when they give Ron Saxton a pass. They seem to essentially say, despite the fact that Saxton is pro-choice and others have raised multiple questions about his position on pro-life issues over the years, they will support him should he beat the pro-life candidates. They are essentially saying, "Ah, he's not that bad," because he threw a bone to them.

That's a position to take in the general election, not in the primary. The primary is the time to make clear the distinctions among Republican candidates who are asking for the votes (and the cash) of Republican voters, many of them pro-life.

If Oregon Right to Life is a pro-life organization (and I know they are because -- full disclosure -- my family is a financial supporter of the organization), then it needs to do everything possible to promote pro-life causes. That includes endorsing the candidate who they feel is the strongest ally to their cause, but it also includes explaining in specific terms why the other candidates are not preferable. In my opinion, by leaving the pro-life Atkinson out to dry and ignoring the pro-choice Saxton, they are allowing politics to hold priority over principles. They are tacitly giving Saxton their approval.

Don't get me wrong -- I tend to be a pragmatic voter. I understand the urge to vote for the person who seems most likely to win. But I'm not sure Oregon Right to Life, which is funded by people who believe strongly enough in pro-life issues to lighten their own pocketbooks, is in a position to be that pragmatic. Their role should be to promote the pro-life perspective, and ignoring Ron Saxton because he says he'll do things a little bit differently than he's indicated in the past is like handing your wallet to a convicted thief and believing him when he says he won't steal your cash. Maybe he won't, but that's the sort of thing that needs a little more proof prior to extending that sort of trust.

I saw an interesting story in yesterday's Los Angeles Times that provides another clue into ORTL's thinking. The story talks about the fact that the Sierra Club has been so prolific in handing out endorsements -- it's supporting both Democratic candidates for California governor -- that the endorsements have become almost meaningless. The multiple endorsements demonstrate, the story said, that advocacy groups and unions are more interested in earning favor with candidates than in providing voters with useful guidance.

"It really is about not wanting to annoy someone who might win," said Barbara O'Connor, director of the Institute for the Study of Politics and Media at Cal State Sacramento. "They don't want to make enemies for their future efforts. But I don't think it's a valuable thing for a voter."

Obviously, this is different than the situation in Oregon -- Oregon Right to Life has endorsed one candidate -- but I think Barbara O'Connor's comment is applicable to this race: Oregon Right to Life doesn't want to annoy Ron Saxton in case he wins.

Unfortunately, that means giving Saxton a pass, and hoping he doesn't steal our figurative wallets.