MCCAIN-PALIN FAUX FRIEND TO WOMEN MOMENT

Each week we're going to bring you an example of the advantage for women when John McCain and Sarah Palin take over the White House. We're calling it our McCain-Palin Faux Friend to Women Moment. The following is for informational purposes only and does not reflect the view of the Faux.

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father."
The source: Senator John McCain -- Faux friend to women.

FROM FULL DISCLOSURE TO RUMOR EXPOSURE

First, let's talk about the Democrats and VP nominee Joe Biden. While we've talked of Dick Cheney's many deferments from military service which seem all the more noteworthy since he seems so proud of them, fairness dictates that we mention Mr. Biden's exemptions as well. His count is five including a series of "2-S's" which all college undergraduates received in that era, before by the hundreds of thousands they graduated and were drafted. Joe Biden also had a "I-Y;" that deferment is medical, the result of an asthma condition which persisted over the years and which the medical review board felt disqualified him from the draft. Mr. Cheney, it should be noted, had no such physical challenges (his heart ailments came much later in life) but instead through multiple undergraduate transfers, a well timed marriage as the exemption rules changed, and the most timely family planning in deferment history avoided serving in a war he politically favored. A note is in order of medical exams: a college friend from a very well-to-do family confided that it took him a "fair number" of visits to the doctor before he finally got the diagnosis which partially exempted him. Did I mention that this very rich person was also very conservative? None the less Mr. Biden did get his I-Y status but given his family's modest means and his own resume of laborious jobs it seems to be what it is. Oh, Joe Biden's son is about to start his second tour in Iraq.

Now to the Republicans, the saga of Sarah, as in Sarah Palin, she has been mentioned in blog and rumor, including that she was an active member in a secessionist party advocating that Alaska secede from the United States, but a check of records by the New York Times finds no confirmation of this. Gee, we haven't had to deal with that kind of idea since the Civil War, which would have made for some good northern disclosure fun, but it's just not so.

What is confirmed, and this is no rumor, are the attitudes and opinions of a long time Palin advocate, Mr. Pat Buchanan, as to Israel in particular and Jews in general. He doesn't like them, and according to the highly respected ADL "publicly espouses racist, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and anti-immigrant views," and...he's even got his own page on the AOL website. One of his choice items is from 1990 where he intones "Capitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory." A shout out to right wing Jews who don't consider this guy and his supporters dangerous, your membership in "Capos-R-Us" is paid up. That noted, if you tolerate Pat Buchanan then you've got to embrace the "maverick" Sarah Palin who's been a key supporter of Buchanan, including his 1988 run for president. In fact, Buchanan brags about what an enthusiastic operative Palin was on his behalf, calling her one of his best "brigadier fundraisers" and complemented her as a "rebel reformer." She organized rallies, raised funds, and no doubt fully embraced him politically and ideologically; wonder how the Republican "fool them Jews" committee will spin that?

GIVE ME YOUR LEFT, GIVE ME YOUR LEFT

While the above is the cadence given to soldiers marching, the left has been a fortunately dominant theme in the lives of some pretty significant leaders. Put another way, what do Caesar, Napoleon, da Vinci, Michelangelo and Einstein have in common? Answer: they were left-handed. As to what former presidents Harry Truman, Gerald Ford, Ronald Regan, George Bush Sr., and Bill Clinton have in common, you've probably guessed the answer's the same. According to those expert in probability, the chances of this many presidents of the last 11 being left-handed, given that roughly one in ten people are lefties, is almost a thousand to one. We'll tell you what is pretty certain -- and that is that the lefty improbability will continue as Barack Obama is a lefty...and so is John McCain.

THE DEMOCRATS BOUNCE INTO DENVER, CONVENTIONAL WISDOM?

To pounce on the bounce, that indeed is the convention challenge for both parties, as in what happens in the polls after each convention. Right now it's Obama 49% and McCain 43%,, what will next week bring?

Will the choice of Joe Biden as VP bring up Obama's ratings, and how will it play with Hillary Clinton's supporters? Planned Republican keynote speaker Rudy Guiliani; when asked by George Stephonopoulos "presumably you know how many homes you have" (by the way he didn't answer) insisted John McCain resonates with the average American. At least, with the average American who doesn't know how many homes he or she has. An additional irony, Rudy Guiliani is concerned that the Democrats will make that a focus of their "attack ads"-- and on that Rudy is some authority. Also of interest is that during his entire interview he did not say "9/11" even once.

The bounce from each convention, we'll see, what is of interest. In closing what Mark Halpern of ABC news said this past weekend, "No one is saying Joe Biden is not ready to be President," and added that included all the Republicans who've weighed in with criticism.

We believe it will be the Biden bounce. Smart man, smart pick.

THE CONCERNS OF HER ENEMIES

There are a lot of people "concerned" about Hillary Clinton (and her voters?) these days. The McCain campaign certainly is, just look at their ads -- and Rudy Guiliani can't help singing her praises as he gets ready to make the Republican keynote speech in Minneapolis, although since Joe Biden became the Democratic UP nominee interest in the "under/over" on how many times Rudy will use the phrase "9/11" has been muted. Lest we forget when Mr. Biden is brief he's chief, a case in point being his quip during the primaries that every sentence spoken by Rudy Guiliani contains three things: "a noun; a verb and 9/11."

But, back to Hillary and all those right-wing Republicans who just can't rest easy because they're too concerned that she's being "disrespected." Come on, that's about like some heads of the KKK getting upset if Barack Obama had been denied his rightful nomination. These people tried to cut Hillary's heart out for over a decade between Bill Clinton's challenges, and theirs was the idea that she would have been a front running and eventual party nominee. And if that stuff weren't enough, the right wing talk show circuit attack dogs made her daughter Chelsea the object of some viscious humor to put it quite mildly.

So here then is what we'd like to see Hillary open with at the Democratic Convention: "These people are as sincere in their concern for me as they are for you middle America." Don't believe it sisters check McCain's record on women's rights, and his "supreme" plan for the courts where it's your choice ladies, for now.

HOUSE RULES

So just how many houses do the McCains have? The first mention we recall concerning this plurality of places was in the "comic" strip Doonesbury, that's how we put the number at "eight." Several op-ed columnists have since maintained the count was "nine," while the ad put forth by the Obama campaign played it conservatively, talking about some "seven" homes owned by the ultra-rich (but not elite, correct?) couple. When asked that very question during an interview with www.politico.com Mr. McCain answered this way: "I think-I'll have my staff get to you...mostly condominiums...I'll have to get back to you." Their (the homes') worth is estimated at over thirteen million dollars, so they're probably not shacks. But think of it this way gang. They can alternate residences with a different one for every day of the week. Change (in venues) they do believe in.

THE BROOKS OF BABBLE-ON

David Brooks is in his own way "streaming" again. Lest we forget, Mr. Brooks was briefly for Al Gore, before he endorsed his Republican opponent as more fiscally responsible among other things. George W. Bush more responsible? Anyway in 2004 he was impressed by the "veteran" presence at the Democratic Convention and was for Mr. Kerry before he was against him, but then even by Swift boat standards the Brooks flowed in another direction rather quickly. In fact one of his primary reasons for switching (within 24 hours) on Mr. Kerry was that he flip-flopped...OK.

This past year Mr. Brooks was favorably impressed by Senator Obama (briefly, of course), leaned a bit towards Senator Clinton but is now for Senator McCain. Are you folks surprised yet?

With that as background we need to appreciate (and read) quickly Mr. Brooks' glowing end assessment of Joe Biden for Barack Obama's possible VP choice. We at the Faux can't argue with a simple reason given for extolling Mr. Biden's word and capability and predict it will take David Brooks at least several days to reverse himself should Senator Biden actually be the Democratic VP nominee. Oh, rumor has it that Fox News has signed up Joe Lieberman as their senior core loyalty reversal expert. Joe, Dave-you should study together.

BROOKS BABBLE UPDATE

Due to Shabbos, our prediction on Joe Biden was published after the Obama campaign announced it. We're glad on all levels, smart choice, smart man.

A PROUD MCCANIAC

Yes I am a McCaniac and proud of it. His trials as a prisoner of war shows he DESERVES TO BE PRESIDENT. It's not about what we the citizens of the United States deserve. But while most, well actually all, agree he should be admired for his tenacity as a POW in the "Hanoi Hilton," much fewer seem to give him credit for the trials he has faced here. Where to start, well for one thing the McCains have the stress of owning eight homes. While we so often hear ("the whining" as still economic advisor Phil Gramm put) it of so many Americans who claim they have "struggles" managing one home, does anyone give the McCains the due sympathy for having eight times the struggle?

On the subject of struggles in the home, why should Cindy McCain be pressured to give out her financials? When did the financial interests, cronies and areas of influence of a candidate's spouse (she's worth less than 200,000,000) become a legitimate part of the presidential debate? Name one time, just one time the Republicans demanded the same of the wife of the Democratic nominee. OK aside from Teresa Kerry. Anyway, they claim that McCain is too old and enfeebled to keep going as president, are you kidding me, talk about covering ground, he's already in shape to chase Bin Ladin to the gates of hell, and the Democrats can't even find that locale on their tom tom. More to follow.

Sincerely,
Raymond S.T. Coadd

CHANGE YOU CAN DECEIVE IN

One of the great lines (there weren't that many) in the Republican primary debates was by John McCain in derisively addressing Mitt Romney. Referencing to the truth, that Romney had changed his position on taxes, energy, pro-choice and many other hot (push?) button issues, McCain quipped (to Romney) "You are indeed the agent of change." So why then would the McCain folks have Mr. Romney representing them on the national talk show circuit, most recently the center stage on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos?" Why indeed. Well, possibly because Senator John McCain in an election year where the mantra is on "change" has in fact done the most changing of all, not from the current administration with which he is a in knee jerk reflex but from himself. That's right, John McCain's "Straight Talk Express" with regular access available to reporters across the spectrum has become the "Straight Talk Digress." Consider the "Straight Talk" 2000 and after version of John McCain trying to insulate (as opposed to emulate) the nation from George W. Bush. He opposed Bush's tax plan as unfairly tilted to the rich (maybe he hadn't seen Cindy McCain's actual financials) and was against, strongly (then) the "agents of intolerance" of the religious right. Today, all that's changed. He stood against the lobbyists who ran Republican policy, but his he's hired many of them to run his campaign now. In 2003 he was all approving of the Iraq war and only after the insurgency showed the mess we had "accomplished," as in "mission" (not), did he take a stand against the Bush Bunch's approaches.

Thanks to Frank Rich for pointing out that 4 in 10 Americans feel they don't know John McCain well enough. Also the story that the McCain campaign has received "strong" support financially from a "group tied closely to Al Qaeda" was broken by Mr. Rich this past Sunday. The source of this information interestingly is Jerome Corsi who has produced works to smear John Kerry, "Draft to Command" and Barack Obama "The Obama Nation." The web site (again, a right wing bastion) which has broken the news on Mr. McCain's financial Al Qaeda ties is www.worldnetdaily.com.

And hey there Mitt Romney, when you were campaigning and your five healthy sons were headed around our nation, but nowhere near Iraq, you explained they were defending this country by getting you elected president. Now that you're no longer running, how many have enlisted so far?

FLAG LAPELS PINNED DOWN, WE THINK

Now that both candidates, Obama and McCain are wearing flag lapels (most of the time) it would seem that matter is settled for now. But in some form, or some other race this important non-issue is sure to again be in question so we've got the Faux solution. In patriotism as in so many other inclinations, one size does not fit all, so why have one size on lapels for all. We suggest three sizes starting with a minuscule one, almost too small to see and that one can only be worn by veterans of a foreign war. Senator McCain obviously qualifies and we feel that makes the statement "better to serve the flag than wave the flag." Incidentally, more than one heroic gentleman from the "greatest generation" who served in WWII and Korea personally echoed this sentiment to me. For regular non-political people who want to wear a flag lapel (if there are any regular non-political people so inclined) there should be the very regular sized ones available. For people with only one Vietnam-era deferment, as long as they weren't retroactively a chicken hawk, the standard lapel we suppose is OK too. But where it gets challenging is when you have people with three (i.e. Trent Lott, Rudy G.), four (our prez), five (VP Dick), or up to seven (Mr. Homeland Security himself, John Ashcroft) deferments; what is the proper size flag lapel to symbolize the "extent" of their service? The results of our survey are in and by unanimous dictatorial decree we recommend a super deluxe extra large flag lapel for all with multiple deferments, and front line Vietnam attitudes well after there were any front lines. You see, a large lapel to compensate for a small shall we say...resume.

WHAT, (if) OBAMA'S BEEN CHEATING, T O O?

No one who's seen the news, read the NY Post, or an actual newspaper, doesn't know that Mr. Edwards cheated on his wife Elisabeth. We all know only too well about Bill and Monica, and that, outside of harming a marriage, harmed our country. Rudy Guiliani of course strayed in his marriage, but did not do his deeds out of sight far from home, but rather in his home with his then eight year old son in the next room. The fact that both his children at last count were working in Barack Obama's campaign, and they were even when Rudy was running, is a rather clear comment on their feelings about their dad. So then...what if it turns out Barack Obama has been cheating on his wife and it turns out is way more super rich (as in financially elite) than we thought and actually has eight homes? Does it matter? Or isn't the most important criteria of someone's presidential timbre (a concept that virtually all countries but ours seem to get) how capable, energetic and maybe most important, adaptable (because you never know what the day will bring you) that someone will be for our benefit, not his.

On balance, Republicans should make no moral judgments on Mr. Edwards without acknowledging an adulterous relationship began by a heroic, and much much younger John McCain that changed his personal life for the better, at least politically and financially? Because the future Cindy McCain, brewery heiress now worth over 200 million dollars, (and they actually have eight homes!), was the lady he was drawn to (and she willingly to her married suitor) when shortly after McCain returned to the U.S. as a justly celebrated ex-POW, his first and long forgotten (by the media) loyal wife had been injured in an auto accident, was no longer as attractive and was forsaken. The McCain people always claim that this election should be decided in his favor based on his greater experience. Well he is a pretty experienced philanderer.

All this of course is nonsense and has nothing to do with how skilled and intuitive a president someone might make, would that we voted the best and most common-sense interests for ourselves and our families rather than our purist ones. Alas, we haven't so far.

GOP $$, IT'S OIL IN THE FAMILY

Mustafa Abu Naba'a is not a household name, for now, at least. Harry Sargeant III of Florida is a little more well known in his home state where he is the Republican finance chairman and a major player in the McCain campaign. Together however Mr. Abu Naba'a and Mr. Sargeant have become an item, politically and financially and may wind up better known than they wished. It seems that these two gentlemen are long-time business partners; in fact Mr. Sargeant is involved in a major oil trading company (he is a partner) and together they were able to bundle more than $50,000 in contributions to the McCain campaign in a very atypical way. There are some tricky parts: Mr. Naba'a is a foreign national, and many of his family members who were listed as donors (there's only so much each individual is allowed) said they didn't give. Further more they were not well off, had no intention of giving and didn't support Mr. McCain. The non-partisan Campaign Legal Center issued the opinion that foreign nationals shall not "directly or indirectly" help out in the "decision-making process" which is "election related." The McCain's lawyer said that Mr. Naba'a's bundling WAS allowed but...returned the money because in the words of their attorney Brian Rogers "it just didn't sound right to us, the whole situation." And they got caught. Kudos to Mr. Michael Luo for his NYT article on this matter and if what we passed on seems like real dry news, we'll try not to make it a habit.

ALL HE DID WAS HIT THE ICEBERG

Watching Republicans like Senator McCain and company criticizing Senator Obama for nuances or his perceived attitude, after their two terms of presidential “stewardship”, please, give us a break. That makes about as much sense as Captain Edmond Smith (late of the Titanic) carping on the crews attitude while they were lowering the life-boats.

ON "ELEVATING THE DEBATE" IT'S HEARTBREAK RIDGE AND ROVE-ING ETHICS

Tom Ridge (R) of Pennsylvania, a possible VP choice for John McCain, has a fascinating take on the Republican ads featuring Britney Spears and Paris Hilton attacking Barack Obama on energy policy among other issues. And that is that such an ad was necessary to "elevate" the debate on that topic. A few quick thoughts on this and the first is that factcheck.org researched and proved their comments on Senator Obama's so-called plan to tax electricity are simply wrong. Also worth noting is that Ms. Hilton's family has made the maximum donation allowable to the McCain campaign. That noted if this ad using the "expertise" of Ms. Spears and Ms. Hilton is to "elevate" the level of the debate, again their words, not ours, what bottom were they feeding off of before they nourished this debate? And isn't that level what John McCain has so often claimed he intended to personally stand for? Guess the "maverick" is Rove-ing off from his honorable 2000 approaches which didn't work with the Republican base, did it. Sad when a man imitates his tormentors.

MCCAIN IS MCSAME; WHEN THE GOP IS "RACING" TO THE WHITE HOUSE

In 2005 Ken Mehlman, who had been chairman for the RNC (and should know), addressed the NAACP with a long overdue apology conceded that his Republican party had used race as a divide and defeat device for about 40 years or so. Mr. Mehlman’s remarks were brief and by many (mostly Republicans) were apparently forgotten because they’re at it again as McCain’s people are claiming that Barack Obama is playing the: “race card”. Huh? Even the most knee jerk right wing jerks knew that calling attention to race hardly helps the Democratic cause as negative race stereotypes ( i.e. Willie Horton and much more) have produced many Republican positives, namely in the voting booths. Fear works, especially among those easily frightened and McCain has become, again, McSame in using The Republican race card, the real race card, the most dominant suit in their political deck, and on this issue they’ve never dealt from the top.

AS TO THE LEGACY OF HENRY FORD THE GOP SHOULD KEEP ITS MITTS OFF

Once upon a time there lived a man named Henry Ford. He was called (because he actually was) an innovator, inventor, and business genius, and his implementation of the assembly line was the foreplay of the American romance with the automobile. He was also labeled (again because it was true) one of the most virulent and influential anti-Semites in history. Using radio broadcasts, periodicals and his economic strength he spread his contamination of fair-mindedness far and wide. We can I suppose be thankful for small favors in that Ford got to live just long enough to see his hero Adolph Hitler eat it in the bunker, but such venom (from both Hitler and Ford) always tends to outlast the life span of they who spun it.
A brief fast forward from Henry Ford's time is in order, as regards the present day influence of the Ford Foundation. In 2001 at a UN anti-racism conference in Durban, South Africa, Israel was "it" in the game of racist tag. The respected JTA reports that "many of the anti-Israeli activists were egged on by Ford-backed pro-Palestinian groups." When they got the unwelcome attention they deserved, the Foundation packed off and pledged to be better. The fact that they did and do direct millions of dollars to pro-Palestinian NGO's which still beat the drums to an "Israeli racist, apartheid state" best is undeniable and regrettably symbolic given the legacy of Henry Ford.
So what do such insidious acts have to do with John McCain, and the Republican quest for the presidency, not much, maybe. Although as the great friend of Israel he claims to be he might have known about the Ford Foundation and the Palestinians, if he chooses Mitt Romney as his VP choice, and we predict he will, there we're on record, he will have to know. That's because Mr. Romney opened his own presidential campaign for the Republican nomination at of all places, the Henry Ford Museum. Hey, if he needed a "Ford" in Michigan there was the Gerald Ford Library, and it's difficult to believe the Harvard-educated Mr. Romney didn't know the Ford anti-Semitic history.
If this is not code to those who under the surface do not wish Jews or Israel well, it's a pretty good imitation. And on the subject of predictions, in addition to being convinced Mr. Romney will be Mr. McCain's choice, we're just as convinced that he'll calculatingly, deliberately avoid addressing any concerns to the fair-minded Jews who've a right to have wished Mr. Romney kept his mitts off the Ford "tradition" in Jewish relations. Could there be a groundswell of pressure, maybe, but we also predict virtually every right wing apologetic in the media, including many Jews, will do the heavy lifting to keep the pressure off. Consider their (the right wing Jews) history; they apologized for Nixon (the Yom Kippur War among other things), Reagan (after Bitburg), and George Bush (after he threatened Israel’s solvency) during the first Gulf War, so we're sure their "honor" will be "up" to the task of providing cover for the Mitt Romney-Henry Ford link. Somewhere the ghosts of Capos from the Camps must be watching.

WHAT TO CUT; ROAD WARY

In Louisiana, some years ago there was a horrific bus accident due to the operator's losing control. That very driver at fault had in fact been reportedly hospitalized for heart and kidney problems but was still permitted to drive; twenty-two humans died in that mishap. As a result, some seven years ago in 2001 the National Transportation Board of Safety recommended eight steps to crack down on unsuitable drivers...good luck to us all, because to this day the Bush administration has not implemented a single one of the eight preventative measures.
That makes this case another case in point to think about when considering where the Bush/McCain philosophy of cutting back on what government is supposed to do will leave us. Zero implementations of eight life-saving recommendations, eight recommendations for the safety of our families put behind the Bush tax cut eight ball, how 'bout it Republicans. Do you think unfit drivers endanger only the children of Democrats? Oh, for the record, it was shown that this past year, over 1,000 drivers were permitted to keep on truckin' although they had either seriously impaired hearing or vision. But again, we can't say for sure that our would-be commercial driver who couldn't hear AND see got to keep their license-you had to be able to do one or the other.

THE ECONOMIC MR. OBAMA

Don't be so economical with your economics, as in tax policies Mr. Senator, chart the chart. Tell someone who is making either $30,000, $50,000, $70,000, $200,000 or whatever what will actually happen to them under your tax plan. Be clear where Mr. McCain is attempting to be vague. The Tax Policy Center confirms that 60% of the tax payers in this country, which could be considered a majority, will get back all of $3.00 a week under Mr. McCain's plan. This computes to 43 cents a day or a postage stamp with one penny back, that's the change you get with John McCain. It may be "change you believe in" but you will spend it all in one place. Where you differ, Mr. Obama, needs to be shown and shown again. You can then tell your would-be voters that a vote for you IS a vote for them. Harry Truman said "If I lose; you lose," you can then say, "If I win, you win."

UNTIL THE ELECTION: 100 DAYS BUT QUITE A WAYS

John McCain recently claimed ( then disclaimed) that 16 months sounded like a pretty good time table to leave Iraq and then said he didn’t use the word ‘time table’. Interestingly, Mr. McCain still maintains we were greeted as liberators, and that Saddam Hussein “posed a threat to the security of the United Stated of America”. Senator McCain also says that when he said that Barrack Obama would rather “lose a war to win an election”, that didn’t mean McCain was questioning his patriotism. Because that’s not the low road Republicans usually take, right…..
It’s also fascinating that John McCain couldn’t make the senate vote on the housing bill (which passed 72 – 13), but says he would have voted for it. Fine, but on the Medicare bill where Ted Kennedy came straight from Chemo treatment to vote for it and break the 60 vote plateau, 99 senators were present: all except John McCain. The Libby Ledbetter bill is coming up arguing a women’s right to sue when the victim of blatant salary discrimination and Mr. McCain has indicated he wouldn’t vote for that. So why isn’t the Democratic line against McCain; to those Medicare recipients, women and those struggling with the mortgage crisis, “he doesn’t vote for you, why vote for him?”

Oh, on ABC’s “This Week” on his latest promise to reduce taxes he bungled as follows “I’ll keep tax cuts low, okay. Is it too much to expect a president who speaks coherently, more often than not? And we ask again why vote for a man who won’t vote for you?

And finally (for now) just how does Mr. McCain distance himself from the Bush Economy while aligning himself with all the Bush economic policies? More to follow.

SOME FEMINIST FAUXWORDS

During the after (sometimes during) dinner act (there actually is one) of Faux News we often talk of women in the political (not in the biblical) sense. After all it is an election year, so in the past primary campaigns there is the repeated question of whether either of two "minorities" as in a black man (Mr. Obama) or a woman (white, as in Mrs. Clinton) could lead the Democratic party. We were puzzled, not by the answer but by the question. Since women are in fact a bit over 52% of the population aren't they a pretty major minority? Add to that, that according to those in academic work who rate such things over 60% of the quality applications for undergraduate admission are turned in by women. So we are compelled to ask that if ladies are 52% of our population and 60% of intellect, why do they get 77% of the salary as men for doing the same job? Which brings us to the Lilly Ledbetter act, so named because on her job working for Goodyear in Alabama, Ms. Ledbetter got in fact very uneven pay for just 30 years or so...well, who knew she can't take a joke. This is going to come up (again) before the Senate sooner than later and it will be nip and tuck for the forces of fair to get the 61 vote total needed to get it passed. Again, these things get through or don't in this congress by razor thin margins, as witnessed by the Medicare reform which just thankfully by one vote. And since John McCain was the only Senator absent that day we wonder if he'll miss the vote and the boat on equal pay for women, as he was out (no doubt) campaigning for their votes while he's to busy to vote for them.