mr. nader? [applause] >> thank you very much, myron, distinguished guests, and audience representing various views. i think the issue here comes down to an immobilized society. people want to get things done in this country. but the powers that become as they have for thousands of years, have learned that the best strategy to block the will of the people is to divide and rule. as a result, we hear article after article about how polarized our society is, red state, blue state, republican, democrat, left, right, and there are many divisions and disagreements, to be sure. there are disagreements on reproductive rights, then control, school prayer, on constitutionally required talents budgets, taxes, on kinds of regulations, and those will probably remain. however, there are huge areas and very fundamental ones in terms of constitutional procedures as well as substantive policies where there is a large left-right convergence majority in this country. it starts with the public sentiment, as a bleak

starts bubbling up to the state and federal. >> mr. nader, your 2000 race for president is widely acknowledged through the election to george w. bush. given how mr. bush's presidency turned out, do you regret running that year and why or why not? >> last i heard, bush got more votes from gore than i did, that's is a minor thing. i don't think third parties are second classy sense. if we all have equal rights to run for election and then we are all trying to get votes from one another. so we're all spoilers of one another or none of us are spoilers. when you say spoiler are third party candidates given all great things they have done in american history to pioneer antislavery, women's right to vote, worker rights, farmer rights, when you just say third party candidates are spoilers, that is political bigotry. so blame the electoral college because gore got 500,000 more votes nationwide. only country i know in the world where you can come in first and lose the election, because the electoral college. blame florida, blame the thieves in florida

and besides, we are taking the senate in a couple months, so hold your horses. >> mr. nader, if you could briefly say, what is your most serious disagreement with mr. norquist. me.xcuse reg elation. a health and safety -- regulation. health and safety standards are absolutely essential because people cannot discern the degree of pollution in the air, water, food come in missions from nuclear plants, all the things that are invisible forms of violence. i even got milton friedman, when debating him once in pittsburgh, to agree them he was against all regulation, including licensing of doctors. i said, you mean a barber can put a sign up and say cardiovascular surgery, social price? people, sooner or later will find that. sooner or later. [laughter] he did agree pollution had to be regulated because there's a sensory -- there is no sensory -- there's nothing that people can detect. cannotmonoxide, you smell or taste it. that is an area i think i can persuade a lot of people, including grover, because last i heard he breathes. he smells. he eats. he drinks. and the more we can g

and by mutual agreement, and by mutual agreement, it was agreed mr. naderuld go first, speak for 12 minutes, then followed by mr. norquist, who will speak for 12 minutes. then we will have question and answer segments. mr. nader, the floor is yours. [ applause ] >> thank you very much, myro fl, distinguished guest. and audience. representing various views, i think the eq here that comes down to an immobilized society, people want to get things done in this country. but the powers that be, as they have for thousands of years, have learned that the best strategy to block the will of the people is to divide and rule. as a result, we hear article after article about how polarized our society is, red state, blue state, republican, democrat, left, right, and there are many divisions and disagreements to be sure. there are disagreements on reproductive rights, on gun control, on school prayer, on constitutionally required balance budget. on taxes. on kinds of regulation. and those will probably remain. however, there are huge areas and very fundamental ones in ter

skipping over mr. nader, an account supervisor at a committee member who helped organize the luncheon. wife of grover norquist. economics reporter at investors business daily. a guest of ralph nader. and a veteran political reporter and former president of the national press club. [applause] ralph nader and grover norquist might not seem like natural allies, but throughout their careers they have fought for a singular goal -- good, responsive government. how they defined a good response of government and how they get there is what the consumer champion part ways. today they say there can be a common cause. nader, who founded public citizen in 1971, fight to protect consumers from a collusion of corporate and government interests. norquist wants to protect americanom

and i'm just delighted to have this conversation with you, mr. nader. and welcome to all of you this evening. we are gonna have a conversation. and then we're gonna open up to questions that you all have submitted. so let's just kick it right off now. when i told my friends, ralph, that i was going to interview you tonight, the most frequent response i got was, "ralph nader. where's he been? what's he been up to?" so where have you been? and what have you been up to? >> see, if you're not on the evening news, you're not on the national media, they don't think you're doing anything. we have never stopped. we start new groups. we foster all kinds of proposals. we try to disseminate information. we lobby capitol hill. we never stopped. i mean, if you want to see what we're doing, you want to get my weekly column free, just go to nader.org and sign up and look back over the years. it's been 40 years now. you'll see what we're working on. and all the groups that i founded i like to spin off so they're autonomous and they're on their own two feet. there have

. >> the case went to litigation called nader versus bork and judge gerhardt gesell ruled that it was illegal and wrongful to charge mr richardson and the view of the constitution. >> i'm at the institute for justice and speaking of justice bork i have a question about a role of the court. keeping the executive in check. korematsu was mentioned earlier and one of the things in the korematsu case of courses that the final report general dewitt's final report supports the curfews and a relocation orders but later revealed based on deeply flawed information from the justice department knew was deeply flawed when it argued the case before the supreme court. korematsu was pardoned after being sent to concentration camp. what i'm interested in is what the court can do to ensure that the executive insofar as it's making factual assertions is doing so grounded in fact in evidence particularly given the facts and evidence used to justify the executive actions are largely hidden from the public and because of national security allegedly we can't even know about them. >> i think that the courts should renounce the foolish doctri