Part of why I asked you what kind of conservative you are up top is because you know this, that there is a gap between, let's call it the more traditional.

Someone might call it the more establishment wing of the Republican Party that kind of buys into the bipartisan blob framing of foreign policy, which is very supportive of the war in Ukraine as every war America has

ever caught a glimpse about the corner of its eye, and which has been framing this particular

conflict as one that America has a moral requirement to be a part of, despite other conflicts

around the world, similarly arguably demanding our intervention, and that the reality

here is that this is a proxy war with Russia that was provoked in various ways, that is about U.S.

hegemony and not about the interests of the Ukrainian people at all, and that our continued

involvement is having the effect of actually prolonging the conflict, making Ukraine feel like it does

not have to have a compromised position in the least,

and escalating in a way that could ultimately bring us head-to-head with Russia, a conflict between

two nuclear powers that could be the harbinger of World War III. That's the anti-Ukraine

argument put more sympathetically that many people agree with. And I think a majority of Republican

base now definitely agrees with that. 71% of Republicans, and I think a majority of Republican base now definitely agrees with

the Vets. 71% of Republicans, and I think a CNN poll came out, I believe, the 14th of this

month that showcased 56% of Americans do not want Congress sending more money to Ukraine. And so

my criticism and critique of Vivek in terms of us getting out of this proxy war is not because I believe

he's wrong. I just know for a fact, United States can't just say, hey, country, you got to give

a portion of your country. We do not have that unilateral authority. You have to go to the United

Nations as a process. I cannot believe that I'm defending Vivek right now. But I think the argument,

the argument is that one, we want someone who ideologically wants to fight for those things, right? So even if you're going to face obstruction, look, Bernie Sanders supports Medicare for all. He understood that there was going to have to be congressional action on that. But many of us believe that it is not the brave position to say, well, we're not going to be able to do X, Y, Z so we shouldn't even try.

What you want is someone who's going to be able to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to force Congress members who are out of step with the desires of their own constituents to start voting differently and change their mind about certain kinds of things. And to that end, people want someone in the

White House who can do what they can from also a diplomatic perspective, not just a congressional

...