It might be distasteful -- disgusting even -- but it’s understood that, practically speaking, you have to make compromises in politics to stay in the game.

There is a difference, however, between compromising preference and compromising principle. The former is what happens when you want the start of Daylights Savings Time to remain in April, but go along with the March switchover because, down the road, you’re going to need someone to bend on a bill for you.

The latter is what happens when you represent black interests in the U.S. Congress, but get in bed with a television network that has a history of rank disregard for black interests because you want to be a player in the presidential primary debates.

Principle, along with integrity and prestige, is what the Congressional Black Caucus Institute has laid on the line in its partnership with Fox News to host two of the four scheduled primary debates -- one Democratic, the other Republican.

Black leaders and ordinary citizens alike have protested the agreement, their outrage stoked by ColorOfChange.org, an organization that says its purpose is “to strengthen black America’s political voice.”

For weeks now, the group has circulated an online petition to register disapproval of the CBCI-Fox partnership. An accompanying cover letter explains what makes the alliance so unseemly. It references several quotes from Fox News hosts and guests that demean, ridicule or otherwise offend black sensibilities.

To date, the petition has had no effect. The CBC Institute’s website still trumpets the arrangement, with CBC Institute Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) extolling the “opportunity to take this presidential election to millions of households.” The website announcement notes that Fox “has been the most watched cable news channel in the nation and currently presents nine out of the top 10 programs in cable news.”

Fox’s large audience is indisputable and, for that reason alone, the network’s appeal to the CBCI might be understandable. But there are two things I wish I knew about the agreement: One, how is it being received by the Fox News faithful -- that immutably conservative bunch that worships the likes of the deranged Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity? And two, What are the rules of engagement?

I would imagine that, just as the CBC is catching it from its base, Fox may be getting grief from its loyalists who surely must view the partnership as a sell-out. What irony.

Whether the CBC has outfoxed Fox by taking advantage of its large viewership and exposing that closeted audience to liberal doctrines depends on the terms of the debates. Will there be a single moderator or a panel of journalists posing questions to the candidates? How much of a say will Fox have in those selections? What does the CBCI get out of the deal other than a mention in the opening announcement and closing credits?

It could turn out to be a shrewd move by the CBCI, but it doesn’t look so on the surface.

So far, it only seems to be another misstep by a group that thinks that "forgive and forget" are words to live by. That may apply to normal human relations, but not in politics. Not these days. It’s a blood war now, and the Congressional Black Caucus, in all of its constructs, would be wise not to let its guard down for a minute.