To paraphrase Mark Twain, everybody complains about politics but no one does anything. Unlike the weather, though, people can do something about politics besides complain. But few people seem to care.

Despite enticements to vote, now coming to vote-by-mail, the people just aren't interested. This year's presidential debates reached a new low in viewers. Why? Lack of issues? Lack of exciting candidates? Or maybe voters just have apathy, that no matter what they do things will go on beyond their control.

The debate by vice presidential candidates Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman stirred more interest than those by Al Gore and George W. Bush. A lot of people are still saying the whole campaign should be between John McCain and Bill Bradley. That's not the political system.

Other countries have multiple political parties, where even the winner has to put a coalition together including splinter groups to get something done. America has two. Republicans and Democrats, and many see little difference in them. There are other parties vying for attention--from Ralph Nader's Green Party to Pat Buchanan's Reform Party. There are many others. All they do is register a protest with no chance of winning, only to be spoilers often killing the issues they do support as Ross Perot did in his futile attempt.

George Washington was the only president to be elected twice without opposition or benefit of parties. His administration included reluctant participants with Alexander Hamilton and John Adams beginning the Federalist message and Thomas Jefferson beginning the Republican Party. Oddly enough, the Republicans gradually became the Democrats and the Federalist theme gave birth to the Republican Party.

When Franklin Roosevelt took over from the GOP's Herbert Hoover in the midst of the Depression, America had soup lines, unemployment and a bleak future. Hoover's theory was to put money at the top and it would trickle down to the people. Roosevelt reversed that, putting people to work through public projects. Everyone knew the money would float back up to the wealthy anyway.

Roosevelt became an icon. People wept in the street when he died. Harry Truman finished the chore of winning World War II and lost popularity before leaving office. He did what he thought right, without benefit of public opinion polls. History has been favorable to "Give 'em Hell Harry" and he has his place in history. Credited with not making too much a mess in office and proving the theory that former generals make poor Presidents, Dwight Eisenhower did remind American to beware of the military-industrial complex that makes money off war.

No one will ever know what place Jack Kennedy would have in history without an assassin's bullet. Now he is immortalized. History kicks Lyndon Johnson around, letting his excesses overshadow his Civil Rights crusade. Richard Nixon is remembered more for lying about Watergate than ending the Vietnam War and opening the door to China. Gerald Ford sat in the Oval Office a while but lost to a toothy smile. The church pulpit would have been a better place for Jimmy Carter. His naiveté assumed all world leaders were as gullible as he. He's best remembered for giving away the Panama Canal--with Howard Baker's help. Ronald Reagan lived up to his name as the Great Communicator. The Republican Party reveres him today despite his tripling the national deficit to $3-trillion dollars and his hands being dirty with the Iran-Contra Affair.

The public dwells more on Bill Clinton's sexual affairs exposure more than Reagan's memory lapses.  He didn't remember who broke the law selling weapons to Iran and supported revolution in Central America against federal law. When Reagan was still acting in movies, he would have won an Academy Award for playing the role of a President of the United States.

George Bush (Sr.) was probably one of the most qualified men ever to be in the White House. World War II hero with a lifetime of serving in government from Congress to the CIA, he didn't do too much harm to the nation. But he lacked the common touch of reaching out to the people.

Those who like Bill Clinton usually say it quietly, while those who hate him--and there are many--say it loudly. Especially despised by veterans as being a draft dodger during Vietnam, Clinton is blamed for downsizing the military even though it began under the Bush term. One of the sharpest men in contemporary politics, Clinton has been at the helm during America's period of greatest continued prosperity with the first budget surplus in decades. He did it by moving to the political center and working with a Congress that fanatically hated him. Every time the GOP launched a program, they found Clinton had already staked out the claim. When they tried to test him as in forcing a budget, they shut down the government. They resented his political savvy, which they seemed to have lost. He had enough charm to be elected twice.

Some Democrats say if Bill Clinton were running today they would vote for him again. Can you imaging what he would do with George Jr. in a debate?

The contest between Gore and Bush leaves most people trying to find the difference. Bush says Gore is a big spender. And Gore says Bush will give tax breaks to the rich and bankrupt Social Security.

Yellow Dog Democrats will vote for anyone wearing the party label. Same thing with the GOP. Regardless of their touted philosophical differences, if each were running on the other party's ticket they would get the diehard support. Too many look more at the party label instead of the candidate to decide. And a winning smile is more important than substance and ability. Gore is considered a brilliant and capable man, but one who can't communicate to the people. Bush is the reverse. He can say nothing, regardless of how shallow, and have people like it--reminiscent of Ronnie.

Maybe one day voters will listen to the candidates and issues to decide the right man. Until then, everyone must wonder: Is this the best America has to offer?