Admitting that you’re wrong is a tough thing to do. Most of us prefer to hide our mistakes behind the door of denial, an act of which I’ve certainly been guilty more times than not. This happens to be one of the “not” times.

Wednesday, I opined on the endorsements of the day: Brownback for McCain, Robertson for Giuliani.

I committed my errors on the latter pairing, ascribing to Pat Robertson far greater leadership weight than he actually carries in the Religious Right. He carried that weight at one time, but no longer. I should have known better, or at least checked a few quick sources before publishing that post. But I didn’t … and thus the first error led to compounding errors, namely:

(1) The assumption that, given his falsely perceived influence, Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy G. represented a precedent-setting sacrifice of principle for politics, not by Robertson alone but by the entire RR movement

(2) This compromise perhaps signaled the beginning of the end of the movement’s influence, based on my follow-up assumption that, whether or not you agree with the RR’s two-plank platform, any movement that puts expediency before values is ultimately doomed.

And that, my friends, is what we call a cascade of utter nonsense.

I began to suspect the depths of my blunder when I read this post by Steve Benen later the same day. In it, Benen rightly points out that Robertson no longer holds the sway he used to and suggests Rev. Pat has always been more political than pure. After reading that analysis, just to be “safe,” I tagged an update to my original post, linking to Benen’s. In the 48 hours since, Benen posted again on the subject, with slightly more detail. Dick Polman also chimed in, offering comparable information validating Robertson’s growing marginalization in the RR, not to mention his history of placing politics first. This WSJ report was the final bullet in my riddled illusions.

Of course, you might be wondering why I am compelled to so thoroughly air my mistakes. Honestly, I’m not sure I have a great answer. Maybe it has something to do with my growing distaste for the obfuscation of the politicians and pundits about whom I regularly write, and my realization that’s it’s more than slightly hypocritical to constantly point out the splinters in their eyes, if I don’t start removing the beams in my own.