mr. norquist. thank you for adhering to the 12-minute limit we imposed so we could have more time for questions. let's start with some questions for both of you, and some people say that the partisan divide is deeper today than it has ever been. do the two of you agree, and how do you think the gap can be narrowed? i know you might have touched on this in some of your works, but if we could have a succinct answer to that question. to that two of you agree, and how do you think the gap can be narrowed? >> yeah, the partisan difference is much greater. year after year the government got bigger, vigor, but always just somewhat bigger. it is easy to agree if you are all heading in the same direction. just a question of speed. we now have two parties, one wants bigger government, one wants smaller government. there is no way to do that. they are fundamentally at odds. while we work to do that, ralph and i were work on the other issues. [laughter] >> you set a precedent, which i know mr. nader will follo

mr. norquist some. considering mr. nader, requesting grover norquist entire race on debt abolish all government regulations thaw spent your life working to enact, why are you partnering with him on anything? >> because we can win on things we agree on. very simple. we disagree on a, b, c, d, issues. we agree on w, x, y, z issues that affect many of people. why should we indulge in this political vanity and be overwhelmed by what i call the yuck factor? this is what liberals have to get over, the yuck factor. excuse me liberal intelligentsia. they don't feel the need out there, they don't have the empathy, too busy writing articles and being in the top one or 2% of income in this country, to get over it. they're not affected by this. but millions and millions of people can be alleviated in one area after another. by the way, the liberals are more rigid on all these issues i have found than people who are really conservatives, not corporatists and conservative garb. you can see that again and again on this question of the

mr. norquist. thank you for adhering to the 12-minute limit we imposed so we could have more time for questions. let's start with some questions for both of you, and some people say that the partisan divide is deeper today than it has ever been. do the two of you agree, and how do you think the gap can be narrowed? i know you might have touched on this in some of your works, but if we could have a succinct answer to that question. to that two of you agree, and how do you think the gap can be narrowed? >> yeah, the partisan difference is much greater. year after year the government got bigger, vigor, but always just somewhat bigger. it is easy to agree if you are all heading in the same direction. just a question of speed. we now have two parties, one wants bigger government, one wants smaller government. there is no way to do that. they are fundamentally at odds. while we work to do that, ralph and i were work on the other issues. [laughter] >> you set a precedent, which i know mr. nader will follo

mr. norquist. before rock neighbor came along, the free market has acknowledged a lousy job of protecting consumers from flawed automobiles and corporations ripping them off. why do you think things will be different now if you realize your dream as the questioner asked of drowning government in a bathtub? quote is you want the government to be small enough where you can drag it in the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub it is a question of how intent, for one's dramatic effect. i think if you look at the history of big government of at&tsm, monopolies like did not exist until the government gave them a government monopoly. on our bellies are created and enforced by the state. i think we -- monopolies are created and enforced by the state. we worked on this together. trucking, on regulation on buses to keep prices high, and airlines as buses, all of these issues, the government came in and set prices on floors, not ceilings. i am not in favor of ceiling zither, but ate like to pretend they're comi

mr. grover norquist. [applause] >> right here in the beautiful -- >> before you sit down. would you place your right hand on the taxpayer protection pledge? do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and could never pay more than your fair share of taxes, so help you got? >> i do. >> tell us about your involvement in washington politics and its relationship to foreign policy. >> sure. i put taxpayer group and that concerned about the growth of the state both in taxes and spending. and i note as we go through history when we have been involved in interventionist wars that taxes go up as a result. they don't always come back down again. the cost of intervention. not self-defense but intervention is one that is paid not just by the people are taxed at the time but taxes go up, the income tax put into pay for the first world war was there long after the first world war was over. and the spending levels with each of these go a. so there's a very real danger that whenever you have the government involved in wars, that taxes and spending that are p

mr. norquist had as ambassadors to the united states and people everywhere has been positive between southkorea and north during it is an example of what america can do using instruments of american foreign policy. >> now those deficits that reagan ran up in the '80s is a strong third increase of military spending contributed to the end of the war. was that of a worthwhile investment and is the world better off because there is no soviet union and eastern europe is free? >> caution. [laughter] >> that'd say positive move. what is interesting what has happened since then and the spending goes up and never comes down we have had the smallest military since 1939. population three times the size the amount spending on the military has gone down by over 50 percent but reagan increased by 4 percent of gdp. >> i will take a of a risk of the more problematic scenario. looking back on retrospect what if bush had not invaded but instead said the very bad guys in the world we don't know who they are but they have come out of the middle east and motivated by islamic radicalism so we will grab some hus

mr. norquist, who will speak for 12 minutes. then we will have question and answer segments. mr.der, 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 terms of constitutional procedures as well as substantive policies where there is a large left/right convergence majority in this country. it starts with t

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