ralph nader has always been a strong consumer advocate and sees a role for government in providing safety. libertarians would like to see the government do less. when libertarians and ralph neighedder agree a -- ralph nader agree a program is bat, it's time -- bad, it's time for our government to listen up. [laughter] [applause] i'm glad we have a congressman or two participating today. i wish more republicans and democrats took our constitution and bill of rights seriously. the transportation security administration is rapidly rolling out a program at our airports where you have to choose between getting a full body scan where tsa agents can see an image of you nude or getting an intrusive pat down like a criminal. we'll here from aviation experts, security experts, and others that the scanners don't do any good. republicans serious about cutting wasteful spending should take a look at cutting this full body scan program. democrats talk about defending civil liberties. these scanners are an invasion of privacy and intrude on our civil liberties. we should not treat every american who wan

that exactly same issue on a panel discussion later this morning, but it is a remarkable fact that ralph nader of the airport screening technology. ralph? >> thank you, mark, panel, and ladies and gentlemen. the major issues affecting the recent deployment of airport screeners have been and will be continually discussed to deal with if they are affective, and certainly they are not in terms of cavities. do they have hazards? yes. the question is there are people who are more susceptible to radiation than others who have different medical conditions, people who have religious concerns, moral concerns that impede their use of conventional air travel. we have a person, for example, who had a wireless incul lin pump -- insulin pump, and he had problems going through the screeners, pregnant women, children, and there's the privacy issue that is also a moral issue. it's a slippery slope. if americans think, well, they don't have anything to hide, what happens is incrementally is they lose their freedoms, and they break down their resistance to any understanding of what invasion of the self involves,

the last great champion in this country, and we will roo the data we walked out on this guy was ralph nader -- [applause] who pushed through one piece of greed legislation after another. ralph was a good friend of mine and always says the last good liberal president we had was richard nixon. [applause] [laughter] welcome in terms of legislation, that's true. osha, the clean water act, the mining and safety act, some 24 pieces of legislation, because nixon was still scared of movements and responded to those movements. and of course there was a conscious effort, as anyone who has read the cowal memo, which i quote at length in the book, to take nader down and they created and funded powerful right-wing corporate think tanks and centers like the heritage foundation, the business roundtable, to destroy any kind of populist activity, especially the kind of populist activity the nader was so successful at when he still had allies in the democratic party in the 1960's. and once all of these checks were gone, we began to see what can only be described as they could talk in slow motion by corporati

. >> ralph nader thinks the only salvation is a good guy that's rich. my question is do you know any really good rich guys like teddy roosevelt or fdr? >> oh, teddy roosevelt is awful. well, i love ralph, and i actually slogged my way through the book, but i did ask him when in human history the class stepped into save anyone, and he sort of mumbled something about fighting robber barren or something. then he said something that sort of broke my heart. he said, look, it's all we have left. ralph who has a kind of eternal optimism maybe that i don't share i think was really seriously trying to appeal to enlighten figures of the class which is why he names them. it has not worked. the rich take care of the rich, and boy, human history bore that out. i'm a huge admirer and friend of ralph, but i break with him on that. i don't think the superrich are going to save us. right over here with the red hat. purple. [laughter] >> so, thank you for coming. i heard you on the radio this morning. first time i listened to k news in a long time. i have a question rega

he makes the point when someone is publicly spirited we think of ralph nader but they thought someone was restrained to have a decent society. >> guest: that essay is a little elitist and a little worried about the democktyization of everything. he defend the population if the elites are destructive of the country, and if the public thinks that's unhealthy and rises in revoted, that's -- revolt, that's fine too. i think in his view you -- politics is a fluid business, and sometimes you're sort of speaking for the public defending itself and other times there needs to be public revolution here against the elites doing this or that. it just means in the real world the politics and in the political theory world the politics are silly to be folk people or police. >> host: that's why it's not the conservative ideology. now, there are references in the book and some discussions of another episode in his life which was the supply side of evolution which is in the late 70s. he got heavily involved in economics. >> guest: there was an economic crisis in the 70s, and i think he had the sense ag

he makes the point when you say someone is publicly spirited, we think of ralph nader, but earlier, he thought somebody that was self-composeed. >> guest: that essay is a little bit eliteist. later on, a couple of essays that he defends the conservative populism. if the elites itself are destructive of the country and public turns out to be healthy and rises up in revolt, that's fine too. it does show the extent to which one can't -- and this was his view. you can't -- politics is a fluid business. sometimes you'll be so to speak for -- think the public should restrain itself. there needs to be public revolutionary against the elites who are doing this or that. doesn't mean consistent, it just means in the real world of politics and political world, it's sillying to dogmatically propeople or proelites. >> host: that's why it's not the conservative ideology. it's a way of looking at the world in context matters. there are references and discussions of another episode which was the supply side of evolution. >> guest: right. >> host: which is in the late '70s, he got much more heavily inv

. >> ralph nader said that he thinks now the way things have gone with the rich owning the media message that our only salvation is a good kauai that's -- guy that's rich. so my question is do you know any really good rich guys like teddy roosevelt or fdr? [laughter] >> oh, teddy roosevelt's awful. >> well, he -- >> well, i love ralph, and i actually slogged my way through the book. and i, but i did ask him when in human history the oligarchic class had ever stopped in to -- stepped in to save anyone, and he sort of mumbled something about fighting robber-barons, and then he said something that sort of broke my heart. he said, look, it's all we have left. and, and ralph who has a kind of eternal optimism maybe that i don't share, i think, was really seriously trying to appeal to enlightened figures of the oligarchic class which is why he names them, although i can't figure out why yoko ono was in there. [laughter] but i, it's not worked. the rich take care of the rich. and, boy, human history has borne that out. so i would break, i'm a huge admirer and friend of ralph, but i would break

exemplar of public virtue and he makes a point when you say someone is publicly spirited we think of ralph naderor someone who is active at an earlier centuries they thought somebody who was self composed and restrained because you need that restraint in society. that essay is a little bit elitist if you want to get into the current term and a little worried about egalitarianism and democratization of everything. later on, couple of the essays he defends the conservative populism if he says the lease themselves are sort of decadent and destructive of the country and if the public turns out to be somewhat healthy and rises up and revolts, that is fine too. i think that the show the extent to which one can you know and this is very much -- politics is a fluid business and sometimes he will be sort of speaking that they public should restrain itself another time she should say there needs to be public revolution against the elites doing this or that. it doesn't mean consistent but the world will the politics it is kind of silly to be dogmatically elite. >> host: that is not -- that is why it is --

he makes the point now when you say some of its publicly spirited we think of ralph nader, somebody that'sactive, but in earlier centuries they've got somebody that was self composed and restrained because you need that restrict to have a decent society. >> guest: that essay is a little elitist if you want to use a current term, and a little worried about, you know, of course the excessive egalitarianism and the democratization of everything collapsed. later on in a couple of essays he defends a kind of conservative populism. if, he says, the eletes themselves are kind of decadent and destructive of the country, and if the public turns out to be somewhat healthy and rises seven revolt, that's fine, too. desha was the extent to which one can come to know, this would have been very much you can't -- politics is a fluid business and sometimes you will be so to speak for think the public should restrain itself a little bit and other times you will say there needs to be a little public revolution against the eletes doing this or that. it doesn't mean they are inconsistent it just means in the w

ralph nader was for safer cars. he wasn't anti-car. i'm not anti-vaccine.ot safe. the safety has never been proven. >> since people have stopped taking the vaccines, we've seen the incident of whooping cough, especially in california. ten kids died last year. >> i have never furthered anything on whooping cough. my research has been confined to measles, mumps or rubella vaccine. the safety studies of that vaccine are largely inadequate, not my words, the words of a international expert, largely inadequate. i have not said don't get vaccinated. >> what your recommendation today? >> my recommendation is for parents to go away and read, there's extensive information out there from went sites like the cdc's website, like the national vaccine information center. like "vaccine safety first" they should read this. believe me, there are two sides to this argument. read, get informed. talk to a sympathetic pediatrician, then based on a good solid science, make a decision. >> okay, dr. wakefield, thanks very much. we have all of this on abcnews.com. we want you to re

alan teamed up with ralph nader in 1972 to found and direct the public citizen litigation group, the litigation arm of the consumer advocacy group public citizen. over the span of his career, he has argued 20 cases before the united states supreme court. please welcome alan morrison. [ applause ] >> thank you. a couple of preliminary matters. first, i first came to a program at the cato institute in somewhat less august surroundings than this. as i recall, the institute was in the basement of a small townhouse on 2nd street southeast. and i was there because i, like the people at the cato institute, believed that many of the restrictions then and still today as to the unauthorized practice of law harmed consumers by creating artificial barriers to the delivery of low-cost services to people who could not afford to have lawyers. i was proud to be there then, and i'm pleased and proud to be here today. the second point that needs to be made is, you wondered why am i here. besides the fact that i was invited. i'm here because, for a brief period of time after i left stanford, i worked a

alan teamed up with a ralph nader to form the litigate of the consumer advocacy group. other the span of his career, he has argued 20 cases before the united states supreme court. please welcome alan morrison. [applause] [applause] >> thank you. couple of preliminary matters. i first came to the program at cato institute in somewhat less adjust surroundings as this. i recall the institute was in the basement of a small town hall on second street southeast. i was there because i, like the people at cato institute, believed that many of the restrictions then and still today as unauthorized practice of law harmed consumers by creating artificial barriers to the delivery of low cost services to people that would not afford to have lawyers. i was proud to be there then, and i'm pleased to be here today. second point, why am i here? besides the fact that i was invited. i'm here because for a brief period of time after i left stanford, i worked at the attorney generals office and i was scheduled to argue the heller case. i had been significantly involved in writing the brief i

ralph nader in the 60's and '70s, was trying to get all of these cars off the road and it is not a problem anymore. host: in the minute or so that we have less, what is the industry during to curry favor? guest: they're using a lot of technology. as far as being in a small car and getting in an accident with of the larger, you cannot completely overcome the laws of physics. you've got safety regulations and fuel economy regulations and they do not always move in tandem. the car companies try to engineer the the solutions they can for it. host: thank you for being with us this morning. thank guest: you. host: -- guest: thank you. host: coming up later on c- span, we have a couple of items to mention to you now. at noon eastern time, right around then, on c-span2 we will bring you the live feed from the university medical center in tucson, ariz., where doctors will be a fitting the condition of congresswoman gabrielle giffords. will be hearing from her surgeon. also, jenny barbour, the daughter of ronald barbour, the district director of the congress woman. expect that beginning at 12:00 p.m

i would like to tell you is that i worked with ralph nader and ross perot against nafta, clinton takingr.'s, naphtha and pushing it. i was there when they pass -- past the permit free trade china. since then free trade has proved itself to be a total failure. our economy is in a total quagmire. our industries have been destroyed. we have been de-industrialized. free trade is a communist idea that requires nations to have their borders open to free flow of capital, labor, products and services, across all borders. when you do that you destroy the integrity of the nation state. we have to compromise our laws to accommodate free-trade. the free trade of labor means people can flow into whatever nation the wanted to the extent we will no longer recognize ourselves as a nation, because what we have here will be owned by countries all over the world. the total united states of america destroying mechanism. it failed for 10 years. host: we will leave it there. guest: let me just say a couple of things. exports in this country support over 10 million jobs. if we look at the world -- the united

you have russ feingold agreeing with ron paul, ralph nader, rand paul. these are basic american values. i want to agree with don that if you are adopting policies or laws out of fear, what are you doing? york capitulating terrorism. it is a cliche to say that the terrorists win. if we are spending money and wasting our assets in being a distracted nation on things that the color coded security alerts that were fortunately got rid of after four years of being on the second-highest level. that sort of security measure does nothing in terms of genuine security. host: columbia, missouri. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for discussing this. my main problem with this whole flaying is that, again, it was a knee-jerk reaction. it seems to be with our federal government gives us in this area and every area. liggett the generalized systems that are supposed to be a one size fits all. we get it in security, taxation, everything. almost everything the federal government does is a one-size- fits-all government. america is a big place and one size simply doe

alan teamed up with ralph nader in 1972 to found and direct the public citizen litigation group, the litigation arm of the consumer advocacy group public citizen. over the span of his career, he has argued 20 cases before the united states supreme court. please welcome alan morrison. [ applause ] >> thank you. a couple of preliminary matters. first, i first came to a program at the cato institute in somewhat less august surroundings than this. as i recall, the institute was in theasement of a small townhouse on 2nd street southeast. and i was there because i, like the people at the cato institute, believed that many of the restrictions then and still today as to the unauthorized practice of law harmed consumers by creating artificial barriers to the delivery of low-cost services to people who could not afford to have lawyers. i was proud to be there then, and i'm pleased and proud to be here today. the second point that needs to be made is, you wondered why am i here. besides the fact that i was invited. i'm here because, for a brief period of time after i left stanford, i worked at

health car lawsuits, since 1986 when she directed an insurance industry and liability project for ralph nader. welcome to you. our third witness is dr. stuart weinstein, a physician spokesman for the health coalitionon liability and access. dr. weinstein is a professor of orthopedic surgery and professor of pediatrics at the university of iowa. he is a former chair of doctors for medical liability reform and we welcome you as well. just a reminder, each of the witnesses' testimonies have been -- or will be made part of the record. we do wa you to limit your testimony to five minutes. and there is a light on the table that will indicate by its yellow light when you have one minute left and then the red light will come on when the five minutes is up. so we look forward to your testimony and we'll begin with dr. hon. >> thank you, and good morning. chairman smith, ranking member conyers and members of the committee on the judiciary, as stated, i am dr. ardis hoven, chair of the american medical association board of trustees and a practicing internal medicine physician and infectious disease spec

health care lawsuits, since 1986 when she directed an insurance industry and liability project for ralph nader welcome to you. our third witness is dr. stuart weinstein, a physician spokesman for the health coalition on liability and access. dr. weinstein is a professor of orthopedic surgery and professor of pediatrics at the university of iowa. he is a former chair of doctors for medical liability reform and we welcome you as well. just a reminder, each of the witnesses' testimonies have been -- or will be made part of the record. we do want you to limit your testimony to five minutes. and there is a light on the table that will indicate by its yellow light when you have one minute left and then the red light will come on when the five minutes is up. so we look forward to your testony and we'll begin with dr. hoven. >> thank you, and good morning. chrman smith, ranking member conyers and members of the committee on the judiciary, as stated, i am dr. ardis hoven, chair of the american medical association board of trustees and a practicing internal medicine physician and infectious disease spec

health care lawsuits, since 1986 when she directed an insurance industry and liability project for ralph nader. welcome to you. our third witness is dr. stuart weinstein, a physician spokesman for the health coalition on liability and access. dr. weinstein is a professor of orthopedic surgery and professor of pediatrics at the university of iowa. he is a former chair of doctors for medical liability refm and we wcome you as well. just a remder, eh of the witnesses' testimonies have been -- or will be made part of the record. we do want you to limit your testimony to five minutes. and there is a light on the table that will indicate byts llow lighthen you ha o minute lefand ten the red ght willome when e five minutes is up. so we look forward to your testimony and we'll begin with dr. hoven. >> thank you, and good morning. chairman smith, ranking member conyers and members of the committee on the udiciary, as stated, i am dr. ardis hoven, chair of the american medical association board of trustees and a practicing internal medicine physician and infectious disease specialist in lexington, kentu

ralph nader in the 60's and '70s, was trying to get all of these cars off the road and it is not a problem anymore. host: in the minute or so that we have less, what is the industry during to curry favor? guest: they're using a lot of technology. as far as being in a small car and getting in an accident with of the larger, you cannot completely overcome the laws of physics. you've got safety regulations and fuel economy regulations and they do not always move in tandem. the car >> tomorrow on "washington journal," a discussion on the 112 congress and the obama administration with republican and democratic strategist. also a preview of president hu jintao's visit to the united states with richard solomon. later, u.s. unemployment and job growth in 2011 with harry holzer of georgetown university. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> starting tuesday, the house takes up the repeal of the health care law. watch the debate and final vote here on c-span. go online to read the entire bill. >> the shootings in tucson, arizona, where the focus of the weekly addresses. president obam

alan teamed up with ralph nader in 1972 to found and direct the public citizen litigation group, the litigation arm of the consumer advocacy group public citizen. over the span of his career, he has argued 20 cases before the united states supreme court. please welcome alan morrison. [ applause ] >> thank you. a couple of preliminary matters. first, i first came to a program at the cato institute in somewhat less august surroundings than this. as i recall, the institute was in the basement of a small townhouse on 2nd street southeast. and i was there because i, like the people at the cato institute, believed that many of the restrictions then and still today as to the unauthorized practice of law harmed consumers by creating artificial barriers to the delivery of low-cost services to people who could not afford to have lawyers. i was proud to be there then, and i'm pleased and proud to be here today. the second point that needs to be made is, you wondered why am i here. besides the fact that i was invited. i'm here because, for a brief period of time after i left stanford, i worked a