What's Wrong with the American Political Process

Watching the British election this week really puts in perspective how bad we have it here. Over there, they say what they really think. Here, we have to parse every little detail, and if one party thinks the other has gotten too close to the truth, they attack, (although for some reason the Democrats refuse to call a lie a lie). Wouldn't it be refreshing to have an actual debate? Even today, there's this story:

''The man's father is a wonderful human being," Reid, D-Nev., told students at Del Sol High School when asked about the president's policies. ''I think this guy is a loser."

Shortly after the event Reid called the White House to apologize, his spokeswoman Tessa Hafen said. Reid spoke with Bush adviser Karl Rove, asking him to convey the apology to Bush, who was traveling in Europe.

The Nevada Democrat expressed ''regret for the comments, that it was inappropriate," Hafen said. Reid was giving a late speech in Salt Lake City and was unavailable for comment, she said.

Asked for comment, a White House spokeswoman referred to a statement issued by the Republican National Committee. RNC spokesman Brian Jones called Reid's statement ''a sad development but not surprising from the leader of a party devoid of optimism, ideas or solutions to the issues people care about most."

But Bush is a loser! It's just that the American people don't seem to mind. Once Bush outgrew his hard partying coke and booze phase, he went out and failed at every business venture he ever tried. He's almost proud of his failure as a student:

"And to you 'C' students, you too can be president of the United States,"

It's been established that Bush would be a drunk ineffective middle manager at some boring company if he didn't have his family, their connections and their money. So what's so wrong with Bush's opposition bringing this up on a regular basis? At least John Kerry and Al Gore should have.

Now contrast that with how elections go in the U.K.:

At his morning press conference on Tuesday, Howard defended his decision to describe the prime minister as a liar for three reasons:

The so-called “dodgy dossier’’ of February 2003, which the prime minister claimed was based on intelligence but was in fact “pulled off’’ the Internet;

The prime minister’s claim in September 2002 that intelligence about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was “extensive, detailed and authoritative’’ when Lord Butler depicted it in his report last year as “limited, sporadic and patchy’’; and

The prime minister and Lord Goldsmith, the UK’s Attorney General, had “directly contradicted each other’’ about advice on the legality of the Iraq war.

And that's not all. Blair has real town hall meetings with real people that actually ask him tough questions and call "bullshit" when he lies to them. Can you imagine how Bush would react if faced with people that didn't lodge themselves completely up his ass? He'd get that freak-ass "my earpiece is failing" look on his face, and stumble through some bullshit talking points answer. But he doesn't have to face that music, does he? He's kept removed from real people up in his ivory tower, not reading the news, getting trumped up intelligence that fits "his" worldview, without any of those nasty details that muck up the works.

Not only does this undermine democracy, but it's boring as hell.