Why is it so hard for politicians to admit they're wrong? And even harder for them to apologize?
I suspect they feel it might show weakness to voters if they apologize for doing something wrong. Maybe they think their opponents will capitalize on any apology and make a campaign issue out of it. Or maybe they're just so hardheaded, so full of the belief they can get away with anything, that they just refuse to say "I made a mistake" or "I apologize."
In North Carolina politics, it seemed to me the best way for Democratic Attorney General Roy Cooper to end a dispute with a previous opponent was to admit his campaign ad was wrong or at least misleading and apologize to Republican Dan Boyce for the ad's assertion that Boyce's law firm was making an outrageous sum from a lawsuit it brought over the state's method of taxation. At one point Boyce would have settled the whole matter for a simple apology that it seemed to me he deserved. It would have been simple, cheap and quickly ended a lawsuit that ground on for eight years and for all I know still is tied up in court somewhere.
Now state Sen. A.B. Swindell, a Democrat, is refusing to retract, apologize for or admit any wrongdoing in his implication that his opponent this fall in a race in Wilson and Nash counties, Republican Buck Newton, is or was a druggie. In 1990, Newton was evidently mistakenly identified in a drug investigation in Watauga County and was to be charged on eight counts. News reports show that the charges were dismissed by a prosecutor after he learned of the mistake. The officer responsible for the mistake was later fired. But Newton's name remains on the public record as having been charged, and Swindell's campaign is spreading the word that he was once cited in the drug case. Swindell's justification for using that against Newton is that it's a matter of public record and he's telling only the truth as the record shows. But he does not include the complete public record information about an affidavit filed in court that there never was any evidence of Newston's wrongdoing. None.
This is wrong. And it invites a continued low-level of political discourse in this state.
That's a pretty sleazy way to campaign against someone, because the implication is that, even if a mistake was made, Newton must have done something wrong to have even been charged. And Newton is justifiably hot about this -- angry enough to file a libel lawsuit against Swindell.
If Swindell has evidence that Newton sold or bought drugs, that's one thing. But to use a public record based on a mistake to defame a political opponent is pretty low. Swindell owes Newton and voters in his district an apology and a retraction. Given the usual practice of politics, I don't suppose an apology is forthcoming, but one certainly seems in order.
