liberties. the new g.o.p. reflected by rand paul s willingness to challenge the status quo in both the republican and democratic party is a healthy thing. young people, if particular, are looking for leadership that is willing to challenge the idea that the government is always right. that is where we are, as well. on defense, though, frankly on any budget, any program, any department of the federal government, let s all acknowledge that there is waste and things that need to be eliminated and trimming of defense would be a very healthy thing. you have to puttering on put everything on the tail. you can say say certain things cannot be touched. chris: sir, rand paul talked about defense hawks like john mccain and senator graham as stale and moss covered. there is a war wearyness. should the republican party trying to grow the party, should it pull back on national
everyone not talking a lot about open-ended foreign commitments. does the g.o.p. need to recognize and respond to a war wearyness? the drone issue and war wearyness are two different issues. rand paul s war on drones is a war on a pretty successful tight against terrorism. i am not sure where that gets us. i agree with bill, the g.o.p. doesn t lose by being a strong party of national security. what the republicans lost were moderates in the election. 5 percent of moderates went to self described moderates, went to president obama, not the party. that is who you need to get back. do you not do it by a drone going after drones but by not making comments about legitimate rape or appeal to single women. you need to appeal to people at the bottom of the economic ladder which we heard a lot at
from the arab league, there was in the case lib ya shepard: a lot of election year politics and interested to hear your take? chris: like obama was when he was runningback in 2008, very easy to talk tough when you don t have responsibility and president obama did that when he was running as senator obama four years ago and some republican candidates are doing that now. obama acting in the role said there is a lost casual talk of a rush to war and i am not sure there is great support for being involved in iran or syria, people are certainly disgusted by the bloodbath in syria and frightened by the idea iran getting nuclear weapons but we can see in the polls on afghanistan and iraq there is a tremendous war wearyness and the idea of getting in involved in a
breaking the record set in 2009 and in 2008. petraeus says it will get worse still this year. what was your impression of war wearyness among lawmakers? yesterday, haley barbour talked about the idea of he envisions starting to pull a lot more troops out of afghanistan, trying to deal with it with smaller forces. been hearing this quietly among republicans for months, but not much publicly. obviously, we heard some criticism of the president from some republicans, but could you detect war wearyness on a bipartisan basis among the senate questioners yesterday? a bit of it, chuck, but to be honest, what i sensed more was war boredom. given the number of troops we have who are fighting and dying, but the whole hearing had this weirdly sort of pallid feel to it. there were few reporters. few people listening to the testimony. a lot of the senators would kind