Redstate

Great article I am somewhat supprised that Graham voted yes but the others definitely do not suprise me.

yea to have the pork diverted to her neck of the woods.

and it's good to see you round these parts, C17!

isn't because of opposition to "conservatives," it's opposition to the current ruling class of Republicans.

As I have stated many times, I very well might be a Republican if the party actually stood up for the things it CLAIMS it stands for.

But watching the current GOP leadership abandon any sense of ethics, fiscal responsibility, proper respect for the troops (VA support, proper equipment, proper war planning, etc), smaller government, and engage in legislation like the Patriot Act, and the recent transporktation bill, and multiple blatant examples of corporate welfare (what happened to fair competition in the markets?) along with the continuing blatant cronyism in the White House, it seems to me that conservatives don't have a party anymore.

And there is no way I could be associated with the party of corruption and corporate excess.

This administration has managed to take almost everything Republicans dislike about Democrats, and treat it as a goal to be outdone!

Blatant, widespread corruption deserves to be treated with contempt, regardless of the party involved.

that you aren't a Republican then, is because your have a very skewed view of a lot of things. For instance, the vote on the Patriot Act was 98-1-1. I doubt seriously that you have the background to judge "proper respect for the troops."

I'd be more thoughtful about the way you express your frustration in such broad brush terms.  A lot of us Conservatives have our pet peeve list about things these last couple years, but your shrill in this comment sounds a lot like the dreaded talking point list for the Dems.

You just lumped the POTUS in with DeLay (ethics and fiscal responsibility) as if the two men were interchangeable.  DeLay is no saint, but I don't know how you lump ethics in with GWB.  If it's the dreaded Haliburton talking point, you got the wrong guy.  You may want to whack that pointy stick at Cheney, but I don't know where ethical deficiency charges have been fairly directed at the President.

I'm with Streiff on that respect for the troops comment. I also sincerely doubt your background in making that assertion.  Respect for the troops is not, as the Dems would have you believe, based on how much the great and mighty benevolent Government hands out in benefits to veterans.  

As for the equipment and planning comment, that's just CNN talking through you.  You know much of those equipment and planning issues have been disproven or shown to be over stated.  He planned the war just fine...how long did it take to enter the country and depose the thug at the top?  The commanders on the ground didn't expect the surrounding countries (Syria, Iran, etc) to be as effective as they have been in keeping the terrorists re-armed.  If we didn't have so much left-wing hand-wringing about executing the clean up, we may well have been outta there a long time ago.  But, we need to worry about naked prisoners and dobermans, and whether we yell too loud at the decapitators.

The President has more respect for the men and women fighting in the field, and has taken more vitriol from the world for it, than you or I would ever be able to withstand, and he keeps plugging away trying to give them everything he can to the extent he knows what they need...in spite of the lies and half truths the media and the left perpetuate to try and improve their position of power or imprt.

Numerous no-bid contracts. Medicare actuary being threatened with dismissal if he tells Congress what his estimated costs for the prescription drug program are. Arrest of OMB Procurement Policy Chief. Dismissal of soldier who attempts to blow the whistle on illegal procurement practices. These are the actions of the Executive. And the buck stops with the President.

by a single Democrat.

And the Patriot Act was supposed to have a sunset clause. But the ones who most strongly supported its renewal were Republicans.

As far as "proper respect for the troops," what background do I need? I'm a citizen, and a taxpayer, and a voter, and I talk with those of my friends who are vets, and I read the accounts from the troops themselves. If you recall from my "Why I'm a Liberal" diary, I have a strong interest in Military Affairs. One of my three books was written by a West Point instructor. I have done extensive reading on the history and policies of the US Military. I make a point of speaking with every vet I can about their experiences and opinions.

Also, it seems that of all the veterans of the current war running for national office, all of them are running as Democrats. (I might be mistaken on that fact, but I'm fairly confident in it.)

The reason my opinions are more bold in this discussion is because I respect conservatives. But I don't respect the current leadership of our nation. They have mortaged our future to China, and thrown away the lives, limbs, and mental health of many of our soldiers in an unnecessary war. And this war was begun in violation of the Powell Doctrine, AND the Weinberger Doctrine.

Numerous no-bid contracts.

Completely legal.

Medicare actuary being threatened with dismissal if he tells Congress what his estimated costs for the prescription drug program are.\

He is an employee and his estimates are irrelevant to the Administration's estimates.

Arrest of OMB Procurement Policy Chief.

For actions committed before he joined the administration for which had nothing to do with his duties.

Dismissal of soldier who attempts to blow the whistle on illegal procurement practices.

Not a soldier. A civilian. And her assessment of "illegal" practices isn't shared by the services.

You've worked hard for this moment. You've been shown an immense amount of courtesy and tolerance. But this is your first and only warning for using talking points and going out of your way to use a Pointy Stick on this board.

with ethical.

Just because something is legal doesn't make it ethical.

you aren't a Republican because of the Patriot Act so we can safely assume that you aren't also a Democrat, right. Or does the single vote cast by Feingold justify the other votes by dems?

As far as "proper respect for the troops," what background do I need? I'm a citizen, and a taxpayer, and a voter, and I talk with those of my friends who are vets, and I read the accounts from the troops themselves. If you recall from my "Why I'm a Liberal" diary, I have a strong interest in Military Affairs. One of my three books was written by a West Point instructor. I have done extensive reading on the history and policies of the US Military. I make a point of speaking with every vet I can about their experiences and opinions.

A lot more than you obviously have. When did you serve in the military? Which VA facilities have you used? What is the correct mix of armored and thin-skinned vehicles for fighting the Korean Army? Given finite money how much should be devoted to armoring vehicles and how much should be spent on ammunition, spare parts, and new equipment procurement? Which war planning staff did you serve on? Are you aware that the book you reference has been greatly disproved in Iraq? What were the flaws in the war planning and if it was flawed why did Baghdad fall in three weeks?

In every way imaginable isn't too much of an exaggeration to sum up the way I feel today.  All of the "We Should"s that you list in this diary are the things that I thought I signed up for when I supported the President and this party.  There are all still things I long to support in this party, but the combination of mismanagement, outright pigheadedness and hubris, and a relentless bad-faith effort by the Democratic opposition has gotten me to the point that I'm one iota from giving up talking about politics forever.  Everything is a hall of mirrors, and I don't think anyone tells the truth.  I knew that, of course, going in...but I had hopes that somehow this term would be different.  So far, with a few tiny exceptions, this term has been an utter disaster leading into a complete catastrophe.

I'm not a Democrat either.

I'm an independant liberal with a strong streak of libertarian-style conservatism.

but are you saying that only people who have served in the military, used VA facilities, etc are capable of judging if the troops are being treated properly?

While someone (such as,presumably, you) who has done those things should have a more informed point of view, I think its unfair to say that anyone who hasn't has no basis to have a valid opinion on how the military personnel are treated.

your personal attitude towards me as "showing an immense amount of courtesy and tolerance," then I have to disagree with that point.

You have used foul language with me. You have insulted me. You have threatened me with banning because I have posted things you disagree with. You have labelled my opinions as "talking points" and refused to allow me to express them, regardless of whether or not they are valid. (Yes, some talking points are valid points.) You have abused your powers as a moderator by deleteing your own posts from a conversation between us because you didn't like my comments, even though they didn't violate the posting guidelines in any way.

I have truely gotten the impression that you are irritated with my presence here, because I was willing to make reasonable statements from an intelligent, liberal perspective, yet I was willing to bend over backwards to be polite even in the face of your repeated provocation. (Thus denying you an easy excuse to ban me.)

I guess I'll just have to go the same way as Trevino. I enjoyed talking with the people here who are sincere in their conservative beliefs. I just wish that more people could see that the Republican Party has hijacked the conservative movement, and is doing serious damage to our nation.

I learned from the lefties.

I don't feel guilty about it at all. If someone feels free to make all those criticisms then I have a right to know their direct experience in each of the areas.

If you are going to say the war planning was wrong then you've got to have some experience. If you're going to say the equipment mix was wrong, you need to have force development and procurement experience.

And actually, if you aren't aren't familiar with the VA disability system you really can't comment on it. The VA doesn't just do stuff. The VA, in my experience, really goes out of its way to help if it can.

The VA stuff, in particular burns me, as the VA is getting more money in actual and in $/veteran than at any time in its history and actually is doing a real good job. We just never see this concern when a Dem is in office.

the original debate is about whether the President RESPECTS the troops, and Bartman's initial definition of respect aligned level of respect with level ov Veteran benefits, amount of equipment, and degree of quality in the war plan.

Not speaking FOR Streiff but I assume he meant to say that before you assign yourself the position of passing judgement on whether the President respects our troops, you might need to know a little more about these details than what you learn from the nightly news...

FWIW

Not to mention the media, care about getting the fatcs right when they wanted to take a shot at President Bush?

But then again, I guess the opinions of those vets don't count for some reason. Maybe they are liberals....

you can color yourself a victim if you wish, but this is a Republican and a conservative site and a liberal viewpoint, either yours or an intelligent one, is a luxury we can do without.

And that seems to be the issue here. You seem to think that the points you post are new or insightful. The aren't. They are old. They are tiresome. And they are mostly untrue. We've seen them hundreds of time and we are just tired of having them held up to us a couple of times every day as if they are meaningful. It isn't like we're refusing to discuss them. To the contrary. We have. But we've elected to not discuss them again.

As to not showing you courtesy, maybe you should read the first para of your diary on books.

There a hundreds of places where you can go and post your talking points and be acclaimed a genius.

that if someone wants to have an in depth discussion about the VA system for example, they need to be intimately familiar with it.

But Bartman made a general statement about his view on how the troops are being treated, and I think its possible for someone to have a valid opinion on that general topic without having served in the military, and certainly without having to be able to answer a checklist of technical military knowledge.

I guess what I felt was particularly lame from your post is that you obviously are very knowledgable about the military, and rather than putting up a bunch of strawmen as to why someone doesn't have the background to have a valid opinion, I for one would have been interested to hear a response from you along the lines of: "you are wrong Bartman and the troops are "being treated with the proper respect," and I know this because of X,Y,Z facts."

It is obvious that you learned this technique, as you said, from the lefties because they never give substantive answers. That's one of the things that's supposed to separate us from them.

is for good men to sit and do nothing.

Don't give up.  14 is at least a start.

is one of the 1994 Revolutionaries and good friends with Senator Coburn (also a '94er).  Coburn talks about him a lot in his book.  Graham has a very strong anti-pork record.  In a lot of ways, he's like McCain.  He was part of the gang of 14 but he's gone against leadership on pork more than most.  The SC crew are a great addition the Senate.  As a state, they are 2nd only to AZ on fiscal issues where McCain/Kyl make a mean tag team.

I noticed you've given McCain quite a few pats on the back lately....is it only in regard to fiscon issues, or have you changed your mind about him in '08?  

Just curious.

I guess you have nothing more substantial to add.

Further evidence of why I dislike the word 'moderate'.

Thank you.

Aggressive, balanced positioning on the environment can be a huge lever with moderates.

Beyond that, these three items in particular leap out at me:

We should be for the humane treatment of prisoners and detainees.  Existing rules are in place for a reason. [The highlighted statement is the basis of conservatism, IMHO.]

We should be prosecuting the reconstruction of Iraq more effectively.

We should be lobbying for a new Defense Secretary, not supporting one who was the architect of the post-war funk in Iraq.  Yes, we're making slogging progress, but it could've been done so much better.

We should be keeping the identity of any CIA agent to ourselves, no matter the lies spread by the agent's spouse.

Let me just say if he was lying I don't think anyone would have risked so much to take him down. The 16 words should not have been in the SOTU speech.

George W. Bush is facing a small crisis in his presidency...

I am not so sanguine about the crisis nor am I at this point certain the President is facing it.

But, really, thanks for this. A marvelous reality check.

why aren't they doing what they were elected to do. Is it the old power corrupts deal or is it just the wrong people at the wrong time, or perhaps it is the whole system in general? How hard is it to stick to ones consrevative principles once on enters the arena in Washington? What do we have to do as voters to get the kind of people who are able to go there and stick to conservative principles?

and I mostly agree. But I don't, and I don't see why anyone else would, have the time or energy to refute statements that have been moonbat talking points for over a year.

What are you talking about?

The man laid out out a platform for conservative policy.

GWB has more respect for our troops than Bubba ever did.

The day he was inaugurated in 2001, the AF pilots working in presidential travel gave a collective, huge, sigh of relief.

The pride in being a military member that Reagan gave back to the armed forces was severely damaged during Bubba's tenure and GWB has gone a long way in healing it again.

No need to talk to vets, I, along with my friends and mother, lived it.

the building.  There are two points here.

First that no-bid contracts are somehow less ethincal than bid contracts that often take several months to complete and run costs up accordingly.  To secure a no-bid contract the government agency must document the critical aspects of the contract that justify the award without a bid.  Usually it is the constraints of time and the fact that no other competitor has the capability of beating the contractor who is winning the award.  This is clearly the case in contracting with Haliburton.  Additionally, a no-bid contract is still subject to audit and record keeping, and sometimes cases of overbilling are found and corrected.  (Again as was the case with one of Haliburton's contracts.)  The only people finding ethics lapses here are the press and democrat talking points which are simply made up.

As for ethics in general, liberals confuse the following of an ethical standard such as the President is doing in prosecuting the war on terrorism with appeasing the greatest number such as the former president Clinton when he called for large payoffs to the Arab world in return for them reducing their hatred of the West.  Unfortunately, both types of ethics are treated in a college course on ethics, so both sets of actions can be deamed "ethical".  It is necessary to decide which "ethics" one wishes to support, but the cry of "not ethical" is not really applicable.  The statement that this war is unnecessary very much will depend on a historical perspective which we don't have.  It may turn out that the war was exactly the right prescription at exactly the right time.

Thanks for the reply.

Unlike strieff's characterizations, I am not here for some sort of ego boost, I just want to figure out "how Republicans/Conservatives think" and see if there is any common ground.

I believe that a dialogue is the best way to achieve this, but considering that one of the moderators here has a penchant for slipping into peronal insults, deleting his own comments when he changes his mind, and threatening banishment on a regular basis, it makes an honest dialogue difficult.

I admit that most of what I posted in my initial comment to this diary could be construed as "just Democratic talking points," but that's irrelevant. I believe all of those things to be true. I welcome anyone who is able to point out the errors in my beliefs.

I'll make one more diary when I'm done reading the books gamecock suggested to me, and I will lurk in an effort to further understand the conservative point of view. I will also be looking for somewhere else on the net where conservatives and liberals can engage in civilized dialogue without all the personal attacks. Because personal attacks, and the politics of hatred and divisiveness are (IMO) the biggest threat our nation currently faces.

Again, thank you for your comment though. I still feel "in my gut" that President Bush is not a particularly ethical person, but I definitely need to get a better grip on the specific details of the issues which bother me, because if I can't defend them well in an honest discussion, then they probably aren't well reasoned.

they are losing the claim to be the Party of Fiscal responsability.  They are losing the claim to be protectors of the border.  They are losing the claim to be in favor of an impecable judiciary (not that they had it to begin with, but this whole Miers fiasco has put a dent on what used to be one of the GOP's strenghts)....What's next? A tax hike?

What will they tell me in 06? Vote for us because we need "Conservative Judges on the Supreme Court?"----That's a laughable claim.  Were the Democrats to clean up their act, they'd send the GOP'd well on its way to a dark age of political wilderness.  To be honest, they more or less deserve it.

... As always, Charles.  One quick note:  Don't miss Evan Bayh's inclusion on the list.  All indications are that he's gearing up for a run in '08, and it seems clear that he's decided to take a page from the Clinton handbook by coopting a part of a traditionally Republican cause.  He still has to pass muster with the Dean wing of the Democratic party, but he's been making noises in their direction:  see, e.g., his uncharacteristic "no" vote on John Roberts (who grew up in Indiana, and whom he introduced at the hearing).  If Bayh does pass muster, however, he'll be a formidable opponent -- far more formidable, IMHO, than Clinton.

Does this mean Non-conservatives aren't welcome to post here?  What about conservatives who just disagree with your opinion?  For instance, career military, lifelong conservative who thinks George W. lied to the American people and put American troops at risk without proper cause. Additionally are you the final arbiter when it comes to who is allowed to post and who isn't?

sadly, most people do support those ideals. I say "sadly" because I've had these discussions on DKos and these are NON PARTISAN ISSUES that EVERYONE agrees on.

So without accusing the "other side" of being something they're not, how do people face the fact that we ALL want the above said principles?

I understand your point of view completely.

we have no vested interest in the success of the GOP, so it is very us to step back and comment bluntly and directly with little regard for partisanship. Many others can't do that...on either side (though, from what I've seen, I must say Kossacks are more quick to turn on the Dems than RSers on the GOP).

The anti-pork bill, much to the inconveience of many RSers, had ample support on DKos. This goes back to the original post. EVERYONE agrees on these principles.

"I'd be more thoughtful about the way you express your frustration in such broad brush terms."

This is part of problem of partisanship. Rants that are somewhat truthful but too broad are welcomed, comforting and reaffirming when they attack "the other side" but are always scrutinized for being too general and "broad brush" when they hit close to home.

It's a double standard and pollutes better judgement on both sides because in the end, nothing is EVER simple enough to sum up in a "bumper sticker"...not only attacks against the Right that you yake issue with but also attacks against the Left that you let go without question.

Fairness takes no sides.

Although you have a valid point about whether anti-liberal rants are welcome over anti-conservative rants, you forget that this is a conservative site.  Go to a liberal site and you'll see anti-conservative rants to be the norm...my issue with Bartman's comment was fair; he was painting the entire executive branch as unethical, implicitly because of DeLay's crisis.  He stated that the President doesn't respect the troops (based on issues and standards that don't reflect how you show respect for the troops), and he basically called the whole party corrupt and morally bankrupt(essentially).

I disagree with the notion that we have some sort of double standard.  We just don't look at the world through the same glasses as the libs; be it here at RS or generically as conservatives anywhere.

I have seen RS give credit where credit is due to the left.  We just don't see a whole lot of stuff coming from them to give credit to, lately anyway.  I hope you saw this today on Drudge about Dean being tired of the Ayatollahs of the right wing.  We just don't talk about those guys the way they talk about us.  And before you get defensive, look at the headline on Drudge that quotes Al Franken as jokingly saying on Letterman that Bush, Rove, and Libby will be executed for treason.  Now, granted it was a joke, but I just don't see that garbage coming from the right.  

Partisanship has dramatically impacted the Conservative agenda; hate and vitriol towards the majority and the feeding frenzy in the media over it has even more dramatically impacted "we the people" and our abilty to have constructive dialog and fight for a productive agenda.  Bartman's comments only mirror that, and they are why I made the statement I did about generalizations...they are not furthering either side's cause, and are not productive dialog to engage in.

I hope you saw this today on Drudge about Dean being tired of the Ayatollahs of the right wing.  We just don't talk about those guys the way they talk about us.

Um. Yeah. You do. All the time. And when I say "you", I don't mean you personally, but rather many conservatives I have personally observed on this site and others, as well as in the GOP elect.

You probably do not notice it because it is directed at your political enemies, not at you; your mental filters tune it out. But I assure you that the rhetoric from the right side of the aisle is at least as nasty as that on the left. If I didn't have a relatively thick skin, I wouldn't be able to be on this site, because I'd spend all my time correcting people who make offhand, silly, patently untrue and often blood-libelous generalizations about liberals.

The double standard IS often subconscious....that's why I say that partisanship can cloud better judgement. people don't even notice it most of the time.

Sure I notice on Kos too. I have commented on it there too. I enjoy coming here because I like to participate in this "open dialog for a productive agenda" that everyone claims to want to have. But that won't stop me from throwing the yellow flag on partisan hypocracy

 madusclaw@comcast.net

Bartman, my ostensible liberal brother

I'll be getting Frankl's and Grossman's books this week from the library. I happen to have a few translations of the 66 books of the canon !!incl. Matthew, and wanted to go ahead and give you some thoughts about Ch. 5- Ch.6, v. 4 and ch. 28 now, after several days of study of the whole book, but with special emphasis on the above passages. I have studied only the text in  the KJV and RSV and have not referred to notes or any outside material on purpose. I have tried to let the words speak to me in the raw, in prayer and meditation, as it were and simply want to relate what thoughts have filled my mind and soul.

Preliminarily, I want to remind you that my suggestion of books were those that were instumental in my "conservative epiphany in 6/2001." Your suggestion of Matthew, however, reminds me that, certainly, the Bible has been the singularly most influential book on ALL my "epiphanies" (save those spawned by Satan) and my life, inclu. the most recent that drove me to love Reagan!!! But it also drives home the point that, in my heart I was always and am still a mixture of liberal and conservative with the methods I see as best fulfilling the demands of scripture evolving to the right over time.

I will submit a complete review of Matthew later, and suggest that you e-mail me (its on my "gamecock" user info) as I expect my complete response in a month will be too lengthy for a red state post!

My initial thoughts on Matt:5-6.4 are:

The purpose of the beatitudes, specifically, and the bulk of the Sermon on the Mount, generally, is found in Matt:5.48, ie is that we be made "perfect" as our father in heaven is perfect. This is Jesus Christ spelling out the meat of the process of what is required for one to surrender one's will to him, that we may be changed!! so as to have eternal life. C.S. Lewis compares the task that God took on by becoming flesh as if a man became wooden like a toy soldier so as to "turn" the toy into a man.

The "blessed" attributes are so described as part and parcel of the inheritance (as a child of God) associated with each. The "rewards" can only be imparted by God, not men.

Some specifics that may relate, in my estimation to refute some usual, though well meaning at times, yet out of context, liberal interpretations would include the terms "righteousness," "peacemaker," and "poor in spirit." As well as the fact that good works are done as a light unto the world to glorify God and FULFILL the law.

a) Righteousness in fufilling the law is an inherently exclusive idea of right-wrong/do's-don'ts. Good works implies bad works. Their is nothing wishy-washy morally relative tolerance about this concept.

b)poor in spirit are "in spirit" (This passage has no relation to socialism)

c) peace maker means a "maker" of peace - now, as with all the beatitudes and most of Jesus's teachings, I do not see them as particularly addressing relations between nations!! I see them as relating to personal relations, BUT

If one were to want to relate them, then a MAKER of peace must actually MAKE peace. Results matter in other words. Hence, one could, if one were so inclined, postulate that the greatest MAKER of peace in the last 100 years has been the US Armed forces in defeating the warmongering facists/communists/islamofacists.

i) "turn the other cheek" - again, if one were inclined to use this passage to support a PACIFIST policy, I think one would fail, since the operative word in the entire passage is one strikes YOU.

YOU.

Not innocent others.

But YOU.

Hence it cannot support taking no defensive or pre-emptive action to protect others from harm.

ii) Notice in the next passages, the precise language:

         1. love/bless   enemies

         2. do good to    haters

         3. pray for     users and persecuters

Notice that we are not admonished to "do good" to enemies, users or haters.

To love, to bless or to pray for, does not require doing good.

4. Finally, for this brief discussion, look at Matt.6: 1-4, and notice that we are not to trumpet our giving of alms (charity for the poor).

Yet, many liberals make their life's work the trupeting of their advocacy of alms as evidencing their superior motives and caring.

5. Matt: 28:16-20

Go ye therefore, and teach ALL NATIONS, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.!!!

Hardly an argument for keeping one's religious faith "personaL" so as not to "offend."

The gospel is an offense to the world, and that's why SEVERAL of the beatitudes bless the persecuted who dare offend the world.

my brother

In summary

Jesus is not out-lining government policy. I do think that the values should most definiently inform us, especially citizens of a republic, as Christians and  parts of WE THE PEOPLE as we  govern ourselves in conjunction with others in the arena of ideas and free speech.

But whether the values lead one to favor libertarianism where all charity is private, or thru churches only, or also thru cities, states or the federal givernbment, no answer to same is found in Scripture, EXCEPT maybe in so much as a true compassion would advocate actions that MAXIMIZE ACTUAL RESULTS.

my thoughts for now bartman

[ Reply to This ] (User Info) (#142)  

I meant Persecutors not haters  By: gamecock  

I wrote:

Notice in the next passages, the precise language:

         1. love/bless   enemies

         2. do good to    haters

         3. pray for     users and persecuters

Notice that we are not admonished to "do good" to

enemies, users or haters.

To love, to bless or to pray for, does not require

doing good.

I meant "persecutors" not haters.

In other words, thsie that are actually harming us in a tangible way or threatening to do so, we must love.bless. pray for, BUT NOT restrict action to DOING GOOD.

I think this is significant and refutes pacifsm as part of the message.

Being wrong or unproven is not the same as being untruthful.  

BTW, way to equivocate the Sermon on the Mount.

Another example that Russ Feingold (D-WI) is a serious contender for the 2008 Presidential race.

This will be a nice little vote that can't hurt him, but can only help him. If only Hillary was paying attention! Well that's why you don't have to worry about her.. you have to worry about him!