Regrets, I've had a few...

Back in February when Jason Atkinson had his falling-out with the Mouth of the Northwest, I wrote a piece suggesting that those people who were concerned about Atkinson's position on immigration should check with the campaign and use some discretion before jumping to conclusions. Here's what I wrote:

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.

Flash forward three months, and unfortunately, I find myself not following my own advice.

On Wednesday, I wrote of my displeasure with Oregon Right to Life because, in my opinion, they were giving Ron Saxton a pass on his pro-choice positions because he agreed to a few pro-life agenda items. I'm still not happy with ORTL, and stand by many of my criticisms from that post.

But.

As a Christian, I believe in the Holy Spirit, and believe he sometimes nudges me with a troubled heart when I've wronged someone. Usually with me, I will feel the troubled heart long before I realize (or sometimes am willing to address) the cause for the nudge.

I've had that troubled heart since not long after I hit "Publish Post" on that piece. And I've realized that I wronged Oregon Right to Life.

Tops on the list is the headline of that post: "Caving in on principles." On my blog and at Northwest Republican, "Andy" took me to task for that phrase, calling it "outrageous and only calls THEIR dedication to the cause into question."

I know my own heart and am satisfied that my dedication to the cause is not questionable. I also believe in ORTL's dedication to this cause. But I can understand Andy's reaction: it's the same one I might have if I were in his shoes. That unfortunate phrase suggested, as I said in the comments at NWR, "that they were making a deliberate, malicious decision in conflict with pro-life principles." I went on to say that I don't think it was malicious or even deliberate. But the damage was done.

I know one person at ORTL well enough that I can contact her. When I read the Oregonian article that prompted this whole imbroglio, I should have called her. I believe she would have given me as much information as she felt she could, within the bounds of confidentiality.

Instead, I reacted. I jumped to conclusions. I acted like, well, a stereotypical blogger, not the reporter I used to be.

So here's the bottom line: I wish ORTL would simultaneously fight for their endorsed candidate and fight against pro-choice pretenders, and yes, I think Ron Saxton is a pro-choice pretender. I believe Ron Saxton met with ORTL because he feels he was hurt in 2002 by ignoring them, and he made a few concessions with them in the hopes that they would leave him alone. I believe ORTL is going too easy on Saxton. (And by the way, I obviously wish the endorsement went to Jason Atkinson, but the ORTL post really wasn't about Atkinson at all -- it was about the relationship between ORTL and Saxton.)

But among the things I didn't consider or didn't give sufficient thought: maybe ORTL didn't want to oppose Saxton because they wanted to avoid negative politics (which is why, much to my chagrin, they apparently told Kevin Mannix not to use their endorsement against Saxton); and maybe ORTL chose not to put a lot of money into the governor's race because their priority is gathering signatures for a parental notification measure they hope to put on the November ballot.

I reject the idea floated by one of my commenters that people on the same team shouldn't have disagreements and shouldn't fight through those disagreements. But I recognize in hindsight that I should have done more homework before airing this disagreement in public.

So to ORTL, I apologize.