Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

No Labels Votes To Nominate Third-Party "Unity" Ticket; Group Asks "Spoiler" Third-Party Candidates To Withdraw; True Crime: "I'm Glad I Had A Gun."; Blown Basketball Outcome Stands. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired March 09, 2024 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[09:00:00]

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: And when they moved in the late 30s, 1930s, the Thompsons rented it to the Dong family. You see the Dongs were Chinese immigrants, no one else would rent to them. And when Gus died, his widow sold the Dongs the home. It's where Ron and Lloyd Dong Jr. Grew up.

And now in their 80s, they've sold the house and property next to it, and they're going to donate $5 million from its sale to the San Diego State University's Black Resource Center. To the Dong family, I see you.

Thanks for joining me. Smerconish starts now.

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: One step closer. I Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia.

On Friday, the third-party group No Labels ended months of speculation about whether it would feel a unity ticket for the presidential race. In a virtual convention more than 800 delegates from all 50 states voted to move forward with the process. And on the heels of that news, several outlets are reporting there's a particular candidate now under consideration, Geoff Duncan, 48-year-old was a Republican Lieutenant Governor of Georgia under Brian Kemp from 2019 to early 2023. He's a conservative Republican and also a vocal critic of Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Duncan recently wrote an op-ed in the Atlanta Journal Constitution titled "End doesn't justify the means on Trump" about why he won't support Trump for president. Writing quote, "Trump has become incapable of leading in a respectable or mature way until more of us are willing to acknowledge that hard truth. We will be on the outside looking in. The news came the day after President Biden State of the Union address which calmed the nerves of many in his own party about his capacity and vigor for the campaign and the job. It's too soon to know if Biden's performance will dent the polling that for months has been finding many Americans unhappy with the rematch of the 2020 rivals.

Last fall, a Fox News poll found that 50 percent of registered voters would dread a Biden Trump rematch as primary voting began this year and the inevitability gained momentum. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 70 percent of respondents said Biden should not seek reelection including about half of Democrats, 56 percent said Trump should not run including about a third of Republicans. And most Americans don't identify as Republicans or Democrats. The most recent Gallup poll on party affiliation finds 42 percent now say they are Independent. A recent Wall Street Journal poll including third-party candidates broke down this way, Trump at 40, Biden a 35, Kennedy at nine with a few points among Cornel West, Jill Stein and libertarian Lars Mapstead and 12 percent still undecided.

Complicating the No Labels bid, several names including Senator Joe Manchin, former Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, even Nikki Haley have already said they will not run as No Label candidates. There's also the issue as to whether a Haley or Dean Phillips, for that matter, would run afoul of state sore loser laws which bar candidates who sought and failed to win a party's nomination from then running in the general as an Independent or for another party.

Joining me now is the chair of the No Labels convention, Mike Rawlings. He's also the former mayor of Dallas, Texas and former CEO of Pizza Hut.

Mayor, nice to see you again. The Wall Street Journal and ABC both saying that there have been these meetings between No Labels and former Georgia Lieutenant Governor Geoff Duncan, is there truth to that?

MIKE RAWLINGS, NO LABELS COVENTION CHAIR: Well, I think we're getting out over our skis here. Good to talk to you, Michael. We have just gotten those delegates to say, let's move ahead enthusiastically with this. Next week, we're going to unveil the process from here on out and talk about who's doing what to whom.

All these names have been speculated. There's been names since -- you've been talking about it for a long time, and everything is speculation at this point. And so, no news to bring you this today.

SMERCONISH: OK, no disrespect to Geoff Duncan in particular, but don't you hope in the end, if you feel the candidate for president that there's a bigger credential than say lieutenant governor?

RAWLINGS: You know, we want to make sure and listening to our delegates, they want a couple of things. One, they want to kind of break the mold from the candidates that are out there. Second, that they make sure that we've got a path to the White House and that those candidates are winnable. And so, we're looking for those things.

Somebody -- you know, it's very tough as a human being to decide to run for a president. You got to have courage. And you got to have the ego to have courage. And you've got to be -- have the humility to cooperate and bring this country together. And so, that's what we're looking for.

[09:05:00]

SMERCONISH: Mayor, you know the adage, right? You can't beat somebody with nobody. Is it proving more difficult than you thought to find a candidate, a ticket?

RAWLINGS: Well, first of all, I think the concept is you've talked about America loves, but it's all got to get down to the person. And that's why we are so excited that we're going to get serious about this now in the next couple of weeks. We should announce something by March 14, no later than the middle of April.

Everybody wants us to do something now, but we do have time. Remember, Ross Perot really didn't start getting signatures till the spring of when he ran. So, there was time out there.

SMERCONISH: So, former congressman Dick Gephardt is in the on-deck circle, I know that he's written a letter to No Labels as well as to third-party candidates already running saying in short order, if by July 1, you're not in a position to document that you can actually win this thing, that you're on ballots to get 270 electoral votes and that you're competitive in at least five of the battleground states, then you ought to stand down. Does that seem like a fair proposal or challenge from Congressman Gephardt?

RAWLINGS: You know, Michael, I'm fascinated with this theoretical fear mongering that's going on that somehow what's going to keep America from leaping into Dante's Nine Circles of Hell is what No Labels does. OK? Somehow, this is No Labels fault.

The Democrats, my Democrats, this is my party my whole life, OK, have done this to themselves with quixotic, a windmill chasing, with bad, bad talking points with the candidate that they chose. This is what the Democrats have done. No Labels is just speaking for the commonsense majority that says we got to have a better way out of this thing.

Do I fear Donald Trump?

SMERCONISH: OK. And I'm very -- mayor, and I know all the polling data because I do discuss it constantly. Most people want a choice. That's what they've consistently said. And a plurality of the country, I just had the Gallup data in there again are independent, not R or D. Before you leave me, respond to the person watching who says, and you've heard this too, in any other cycle, this would be worthy of pursuit, but you can't do it in this cycle because Donald Trump is perilous to democracy. You say what to that?

RAWLINGS: We're kind of get run over by the Donald Trump train. OK? We didn't tie the Democrats to this track. We were the ones that saw this coming and say, get off the track, let's do this in a different way. Let's talk about common sense issues.

Let's get common sense leadership. Let's take accountability in this country. You know, as opposed to like pointing fingers and putting the blame game, let's stand up and let's say, what we're going to do for America in this future?

SMERCONISH: Mayor Rawlings, thank you for being here. Appreciate it.

RAWLINGS: Thank you. SMERCONISH: Now for an opposing point of view, Dick Gephardt, former House Democratic Majority Leader, himself ran for president in 1988 and 2004, the group that he co-founded, it's called Citizens to Save Our Republic, it's a bipartisan organization, I mentioned this, sent an open letter to the No Labels delegates, as well as similar letters to RFK Jr., Jill Stein and Cornel West, the letter asks that they signed the following no spoiler pledge, quote, "If by July one, No Labels and or its ticket has not qualified to be on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical chance to win 270 electoral votes and is not competitive in five or more states, No Labels commits to withdrawing its candidate from the ballots in the swing states that will decide the election. That will ensure an up or down vote for democracy."

Congressman, nice to see you again. You ran twice for president, why shouldn't anybody else have that opportunity?

DICK GEPHARDT (D), FMR. HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER: They should, Michael, as I've said to you before, if these were normal times, we would have no problem with this. Anybody can run we're in a free country. I ran twice for the Democratic nomination. Nobody told me I could, nobody told me I couldn't. It's a choice of everybody can make.

And I heard what the mayor said and I respect him, but he's saying the Democrats dropped the ball here. Well, he could have run against Joe Biden. Anybody else could have run against Joe Biden. Everybody chose not to do that. So he's going to be our nominee.

So, we are where we are but Donald Trump, who's the Republican nominee, tried to overthrow the last election, and he tried to overthrow the federal government. He cannot be allowed, as Liz Cheney said, anywhere near the White House again. So we're just trying to alert No Labels and the other third-party candidates, don't risk putting Donald Trump back in the White House by running in this context.

[09:10:22]

SMERCONISH: Congressman, you, you make the point that in any other cycle, maybe it's worthy of pursuit. You also salute some of the work that No Labels has done in particular with the problem solvers. For me, it's kind of a Rorschach test, glass half empty, glass half full depends how you interpret it, you say any other cycle because Trump is too big of a threat. I look at the data and I say, the moon and the stars have lined up because people want a choice. We may never get an opportunity like this, again, where so many individuals are begging for an alternative.

GEPHARDT: Michael, let me give a little history and a little mathematics. In 2016, Donald Trump got 46 percent of the national vote, and third parties in that race got 5 percent of the vote. That elected Donald Trump. In 2020, he got 46 percent of the vote, but the third parties only got 2 percent of the vote. And that allowed Joe Biden to win a razor thin majority over Donald Trump.

Now, let's look at some history. In 1992, Ross Perot entered the race late, he got 19 percent of the vote, he got no electoral votes, not one. To get an electoral vote, you have to win a plurality of a state. And that is what we do not believe No Labels or any of these others are going to be able to do.

And I've seen a recent poll that says that, Nikki -- if Nikki Haley is the No Labels candidate in this race, she gets 11 percent of the vote, and she would not get one electoral vote. That's our worry.

SMERCONISH: I want you to respond to a comment, I'll put it on the screen, but I'll read it aloud in case you can't see it. This is from the Wall Street Journal coverage of that story today that says Geoff Duncan is under consideration. A gentleman named George says this, "I give No Labels a lot of credit. Our system has evolved in a way that both major parties essentially represent a political duopoly and it ain't working. They both have produced candidates that no one likes except the extremes.

These guys are both running against each other, neither of them could be anyone other than the guy they're running against. Use your brains people don't be sheep, it's time for the thoughtful center to take back the country." What do you say to George Spencer?

GEPHARDT: In another time, that may be true. I'll say it again, the Republican nominee Donald Trump would end our democracy. That's what we're talking about here. That's the only thing to talk about.

In this election, democracy is on the ballot, and all of us are on the ballot. If the American people want to preserve this precious gift that we were given by our founders in 1789, we were the first people on earth that were allowed to govern ourselves, we have to prevent someone coming to this office, who will destroy the electoral process and this democracy.

SMERCONISH: Thank you, Congressman. I wish we had more time because, you know, I love this debate. Appreciate you being here.

GEPHARDT: Thank you.

SMERCONISH: What are your thoughts? Hit me up on social media. I'll read some responses throughout the course of the program. From the world of X, realistically, don't you think the unity party should have been grooming a candidate for months if not years ago is this a little late in the game?

A.J., I think it's an idea that many of us, I'll put myself in that category for sure, embrace in the abstract until you get to the point of deciding, OK, who will it be? And the individuals who are out there of stature have not signified that they've got a willingness or an ability to do it. You want to name for me, I'll give you two and they're both admirals, William McRaven, and James Stavridis. If either of them were willing to accept a No Labels invitation, it's a game changer.

Speaking of games, still to come, a heroic game winning buzzer beater at a high school boys' basketball game in New Jersey. This is unbelievable. Nullified by refs, who said the shot had been launched after time expired, changing which team got to keep going to the state championships. But the call was so demonstrably wrong. Look at the clock, there's time on the clock but the team then took it to a different kind of court, the one where the judge.

[09:15:06]

A decision was made. So, who's going to get to play in the state championship? That's the basis for today's poll question at smerconish.com. I want to know what you think. Should courts, legal courts, should courts correct a blown call by a high school sports referee?

Be sure when you're there to sign up for my free daily newsletter, you're going to find exclusive content from political cartoonists like two time Pulitzer winner, Steve Breen. Check that out.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:20:00]

SMERCONISH: It's over, everybody agrees they got robbed. Should a court have overturned it?

Two New Jersey high school boys basketball teams will face off today at noon in a championship game after a controversial courtside ruling. On Tuesday, the Camden Panthers were leading the Manasquan Big Blue Warriors scores 46-45 during the semifinal game. Three seconds on the clock, Manasquan player misses a three pointer from the wing. His teammate Griffin Linstra was there, grabs the rebound, put the shot back in for what the team thought was the game winning basket. The buzzer beater secured Manasquan spot in the state championship or so it seemed while the fans rushed onto the court to celebrate the referees decided to reverse the original call, resulting in a victory for Camden.

This despite the fact that several videos showed that the shot clearly should have counted, there was time on the clock. The next day, the New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association admitted the referees made the wrong call, even going as far as to apologize for the error. And despite the overwhelming evidence from the video, the tournament rules prohibit the use of videos in reversing a game officials' decision. Even New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy weighed in on the controversial call saying that he felt badly for the players, the coaches, the families that had a victory snatched from them. But ultimately he said he couldn't do anything to change the outcome.

The Manasquan school board, the board of education ask a county Superior Court Judge to delay today's championship game between the Camden Panthers and the Arts High School Jaguars, but their request was denied. And then yesterday Friday, the New Jersey Commissioner of Education declined to hear the board's appeal, citing that quote, "The commissioner cannot find that the officials' decision regarding the basket was anything other than a judgment call. And the NJSIAA rules clearly state that once an official has made a judgment call, no appeals will be honored. Even if the official decision was not correct, under the clear and explicit bylaws, it is not removed reviewable."

Plus, the Appellate Division for the superior court in New Jersey also denied Manasquan's appeal. I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com. Answer today's poll question. Should courts correct a blown call by a high school sports referee?

Joining me now is John Papola. He's a filmmaker, entrepreneur and host of "Dad Saves America" podcast.

John, nice to see you. Everybody agrees, Manasquan was robbed. The question is, what if anything should have been done about it?

JOHN PAPOLA, HOST, "DAD SAVES AMERICA" PODCAST: Well, first of all, thanks for having me, Michael. You know, it's funny because this one goes against my libertarian priors, which is I actually think the courts and the governor of New Jersey got this right.

How are you going to do this, right? How are you going to, at this slight slim margin, make a decision just on the basis of the final shot? I mean, any shot throughout that whole game would have changed that outcome. So, I kind of -- I feel for the parents, I feel for the school. You know, my son played varsity basketball this year, and so, I've been a parent on the sidelines, cheering for my son and getting angry about bad calls.

But there's -- I mean, how many calls throughout that game could have gone the other way if the cameras were focused on it. So, I think the --

SMERCONISH: You make a really good point.

PAPOLA: I think the court made the right call. I think the school --

SMERCONISH: And, by the way, a point made by one of the lawyers in this case. Catherine (ph) put up on the screen so I can show John. He said, "Are we going to go back and look at all 32 minutes of the game and come to the judge and say, judge, this wasn't a foul. It's ridiculous." That's really the point you're making like, how far back are we going to begin the process of review?

PAPOLA: Well, I also think we have this problem in our country where everything is a constant appeal to the next highest authority, and everything's become political. And, to me, this sort of speaks to this problem we have of adulthood. You know, the adults at the school level should have taken a deep breath after this and rallied around the team and said, look, this, these are the rules and this is the way this goes and sometimes life isn't fair. And to take it to court, I don't know. I just think that sends the wrong message to the whole community, especially to the kids.

SMERCONISH: OK, Griffin Linstra is the young man who made the shot, that the shot that he should have remembered well, frankly now, he will remember for the rest of his life, John, you are all about dads and the importance of dads --

PAPOLA: Yes. SMERCONISH: -- as role models, if you were his dad, the young man who made that shot that should have made him a hero and onto the next level of the championship, what do you say to him? What's the message for him?

PAPOLA: Well, I think I'd first say, look, imagine being on the Camden team going into the next round knowing that you technically lost, you know, life is like this. Life involves close calls that could go one way or the other and you play great and you've got an awesome life ahead of you. So, like brush it off. It's -- you're going to be alright, you're going to survive. I mean, honestly, that is what I would say. That's what I tell my own son.

[09:25:17]

SMERCONISH: OK, we're limited to 30 seconds. How about the Camden team? Is there any argument here for them to stand down and say, we're not cool with how we won this?

PAPOLA: I mean, that'd be up to them. I think that again -- I think Mr. Campanelli (ph) makes a pretty good point. You know, these things happen throughout the game all the time. And as a parent, I've had that experience like, oh, well, you know, if that one call hadn't been made, and they didn't reverse that, you know, or if they'd gotten the three point there, it would have changed everything. I mean, this is just one of those rare cases where it came right down to the last second. It was one basket away that determined it, and it creates this heat.

But, you know, I don't know. This is not ultimately a moral decision. This is sort of about the rules and everybody getting hothead and caught up in things.

SMERCONISH: I think you're right. John Papola, thank you for that. Appreciate it.

PAPOLA: Thanks for having me.

SMERCONISH: A lot of social media reaction to this. Catherine, what do we have? From the world of YouTube, We can't make everything in life about going to court. Officiating errors happen in every game everywhere, says Chuck Hall.

Chuck is correct, of course. I guess what makes this so compelling is the video, right? Otherwise, it would have been great barroom fodder forever.

Was there still time on the clock? I don't know. Do you think there was time in the clock? Here, there was time on the clock. Make sure you're voting. Go to smerconish.com cast a ballot on today's poll question, should courts correct a blown call, I want to make it clear, everybody knows it was blown by a high school sports referee.

Up ahead, my next guest lived all of our nightmare being awoken 02:00 in the morning by an intruder right at the foot of his bedroom. The homeowner had a gun in his closet. So how did it end? That homeowner, former "Washington Post" staff writer, Fredrick Kunkel, is here to tell the tale.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:31:46]

SMERCONISH: What if this happened to you? 2:35 one morning my next guest, Fredrick Kunkle, asleep in his house in Washington, D.C. He's alone. His spouse was away on business. He opened his eyes and saw an intruder coming to the top of the stairs, passes bedroom door and head down the hallway.

He thought about grabbing a tool from his toolbox, then worried that might escalate things so he yelled at the man to leave. As Kunkle recently recounted in the "Washington Post," the intruder then asks how, just go out the front door. I shouted, while trying to see whether he had a weapon. To my amazement, he became belligerent, cursing and saying, front door? Who do you think you are? Or some such thing as he went down the stairs. Kunkle called 911.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

911 OPERATOR: What's the emergency?

FREDRICK KUNKLE, FORMER STAFF WRITER, WASHINGTON POST: Yes. There's a guy who appears to be drunk and lost and is a little bit belligerent. He's somehow gotten into the house and he won't leave.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: The police were dispatched, but Kunkle heard the guy rummaging in the kitchen. Was he looking to leave or maybe find a knife? That's when Kunkle decided to get his own .357 Magnum revolver from a locked case in his walk-in bedroom closet. So, what happened next?

Fredrick Kunkle joins me now. He's a former staff writer for the "Washington Post." You know, Freddy, the fact that he's in your house, you've got a gun for many that's like the end of the story, the end of the debate. They say, you should have shot him.

KUNKLE: Yes. Well, the one thing that really stays with me a lot from that night was two surprising things. One, how during the incident I was relatively calm, surprisingly calm and thinking very clearly how much I did not want to shoot anybody that night, how much I didn't even want to escalate things as you mentioned, by showing him that I had a knife -- had a gun or ordering him out of the house.

And the other thing was how I was also very sure in my mind that if he did come toward me, I would shoot and I would put this guy down. But it was only afterwards that I realized -- then the adrenaline sort of flooded over me by the time the police finally came that I realized how rattled I was, how scared I was at the time because I just didn't know what this guy was going to do.

He had surprised me. I went -- I was waiting for the police to come. It took them at least 20 minutes. And so, after I loaded the weapon and I went downstairs to just see -- you know, and I also thought I'm going to have to let the police in to see if anybody was still there. I had a flashlight on. I came to the bottom of the stairs it turned out he was hiding right behind the door just a few feet away from me. It was a very strange encounter.

SMERCONISH: Why even go downstairs? Like, I get it. The intruder has gone down the stairs.

[09:35:00]

You've retrieved your weapon. Why not just, you know, Katy bar the door, wait for the cops, and whatever he takes, he takes? Why put your life in jeopardy?

KUNKLE: You know, I guess because I was wondering -- I actually thought are the police actually going to come to be honest. And I wasn't sure if he is there, if the house was still open. It turned out the front door was still open.

I don't know. In retrospect, maybe I should have just hunkered down, but I just sort of cautiously went downstairs as cautiously as I thought I could do, again, expecting the guy had left.

SMERCONISH: So, in "The Post," you tell the full story. I encourage people to read it. He does leave, the police do arrive. A block or two away they apprehend someone. They take you over. It's the guy. You decide not to press charges. And I think you regret that.

KUNKLE: I do. I regret only because I was under the understanding that if they had stopped this guy, I IDed the guy, I was absolutely sure it was the same guy who had been in my house. And I told the police if this guy has a record or he fits the description of somebody else say jiggling doors, had been seen prowling around some place, and then it looks like this was purposeful then I was a player. I would definitely want to press charges.

But I also thought it was just some guy who stumbled into my house loaded, drunk. It was an honest mistake. Would I really want to put them into the system for something -- it had been unlawful entry. And that's what I was thinking.

So, the police told me that night. Well, he doesn't have a record and we are going to make a note. He's going to be in the system. So, he couldn't -- if he's ever caught in another house, he couldn't say this was an accident.

And it was only after the fact that I discovered there's really no formal entry in the police report or anywhere else about what had happened. A spokesman for the department told me it might have been in the officer's notes in that district who works that beat.

SMERCONISH: Final thought. Put this in the broader context of the Second Amendment, because oftentimes when we debate the Second Amendment, this is exactly the kind of case that we have in mind, right? I mean, you had a right to have that weapon. I would argue you had a right under the castle doctrine to use it, but I'm curious for your big picture takeaway.

KUNKLE: Yes. Well, first, I'm a very strong believer in that people should have a right to at least have a firearm in their home if they wish to -- for self-defense, to protect one's life -- life and liberty, obviously. And so, I think that's really a profound right that we have. And I'm glad we have it in the Second Amendment.

But I'm really grateful that I didn't shoot and kill or hurt this person. I didn't need to in the end, even though I should say, under the castle doctrine, some would argue, I could have.

SMERCONISH: We don't know why he -- did he take anything? I mean, because they didn't keep track of him. You didn't press charges. We really don't know anything about this individual. Anything gone from the house?

KUNKLE: Yes. The only thing that we found out that was missing afterwards were the remote controls from -- you know, to the TV set. Why he took them? I don't know.

SMERCONISH: If it's -- Freddy -- Freddy, if your house -- if your house is like my house, look under the cushion. Look under the cushion. OK?

KUNKLE: I'll check it out.

SMERCONISH: Thank you. What a story, harrowing. I'm not making light of it. Harrowing story and well-told by Freddy Kunkle. Thank you, Freddy.

KUNKLE: Thanks. Thanks --

(CROSSTALK)

SMERCONISH: From social media. From the world of X -- thank you. What do we have from the world of X?

We have every right to protect ourselves. Get educated, take a class, practice shooting, guns are tools and if used properly can help. If someone comes into your home to do you harm you have that right.

No beef about that. Kelly Ann, the way that you've expressed it. And by the way, I know from Freddy's piece and from speaking to him that he is knowledgeable, proficient, having grown up in western Pennsylvania, and I think hunted as a younger person, he knows what he's doing with a gun. And I think you're right to say people ought to be well-trained if they're going to own it. And he, in my opinion, had the right to use it. But you heard him say he is grateful that he didn't.

And by the way, I talked about this extensively on my SiriusXM radio program. I was amazed at how many people have similarly -- have had similar episodes where people have just shown up oftentimes due to mental illness in a place where they should not have been. So, tip of the iceberg, I guess, is what I'm trying to say. Still to come, more of your best and worst social media comments. We love them, my favorite part of the program. Don't forget, vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Based on what happened this week in a high school basketball game in New Jersey, where the refs denied a buzzer-beater that would have won the game.

[09:40:02]

The case ended up in front of a judge. So, I'm asking, should courts correct a blown call by a high school sports referee?

If you subscribe to my daily newsletter, you're going to get exclusive editorial cartoons from the legends. Check out what artist Rob Rogers drew for us this week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: Hey, gang, you can find me on all social media platforms. My favorite part of the program is when I get to respond to those things that come in without my seeing them in real time. What do we got? From the world of X.

With respect, you should have led your show with President Biden's performance in the State of the Union address.

[09:45:01]

You should have revisited the question of his mental fitness, which the president has clearly answered, says Brandt.

Well, you're giving me the opportunity to do that. So, if you're asking me what did I think of the address I talked about it extensively on my radio program. I thought that he turned in a very strong performance, he needed to, and that this will probably quell the talk of a replacement between now and the convention unless something else should happen.

I have to say that while I give the president props for the State of the Union address, it was too political. It was much too political. All that discussion of my predecessor was over the top. You know, Marjorie Taylor Greene dressing like a clown for the event and so forth. I don't want a State of the Union to become an RNC or a DNC acceptance speech for a nomination.

But no, I fully acknowledge it. President Biden was on top of his game in the State of the Union. So, there. I think you got what you wanted from me.

What else, Catherine, from the world of -- I don't know, social media, live chat. Michael, how dumb are you? Pretty dumb, Anna.

If you can't see the threat to democracy that a third party running represents this -- you should not have a national platform. Tsk, tsk, tsk, she says.

I don't want to be repetitive, but I look at the glass differently, Anna, than you do. I look at two extremely unpopular candidates. I don't remember in my lifetime, I've been paying close attention since the 1980's cycle, never before have we had numbers on both major party candidates like we have today. And in the context of a plurality of the country saying, I'm not an R, and I'm not a D, I'm an I.

By the way, you would just never know that from following the media and the politicians because it's in their advantage to pit us against one another from the polar extremes. But the reality is that the country is somewhere in-between and people are yearning for an alternative. So, if the alternative is not to be in the year when we've got two wildly unpopular candidates, then let's stop even debating the concept of a third-party candidate because it will never happen. That's what I think I would say.

One more, real quick. What do we have? Yes, I'm keeping my eye on the clock. Don't worry.

Could this be the year a third-party candidate ensures no one reaches 270 electoral, sends it to the House of Representatives according to -- yes, Darrel, it potentially could be. I mean, it could be. That's what happens, right? I mean, if no one gets to 270, it goes to the House of Representatives. It will be the incoming House that will make that call every state, South Dakota, and California get the same level of power, one vote per delegation. It's possible that that could -- that that could be the case.

Look, I'm only saying if you're asking for my opinion, my opinion is let's let this play out. Let's see what No Labels comes up with. Why would we say today shut it down? Let's give them the opportunity to field the ticket. I will tell you as well that a lieutenant governor is not going to meet what I'm looking for. That's not at the level where somebody runs for president. My two cents.

Still to come, look, they blew it. Can we watch this again? Can we show the video one more time?

Look at that. There's time on the clock. Here it comes. Boom. There's still time on the clock. Everybody agrees. And yet the winning shot, the team with the winning shot, they got screwed.

The final results are upcoming. Have you voted yet at Smerconish.com? Should courts, meaning legal courts, correct something like this, a blown call by a high school sports referee? When you go vote, sign up for the newsletter. Jack Ohman turn -- I love that cartoon. Look at this. This is after the Colorado decision. Check out the footwear on the justices.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:53:26]

SMERCONISH: So, here's the results so far of today's poll. Wow. Whoa. Lopsided. That's today's poll question. Should courts correct a blown call by a high school sports referee? We're approaching 30,000 votes. I'll leave it up. You can continue to vote. Eighty-four percent say, no. That's the correct answer, right? I mean, come on. The message here, including for that young man who made the shot and forever, you know, would have been the hero of the community, life's not fair. Life's not always fair. And human factors, blown calls are a part of sporting contests. It will be -- it will be great -- how's this? It will be great to talk about it in your reunion for the rest of your life.

And by the way, speaking of milestones, I want to say this. Today marks the 10-year anniversary of this program on CNN. Ten years of about, what, 50 shows per year, 500 shows, even I can do the math. Look at me 10 years ago yesterday. I went looking for that that tie in my closet today, but I couldn't find it.

What do you think, Catherine? How am I doing on the age meter? Am I aging appropriately? I've changed the eyewear. That's a lot of commentaries, 500 shows. That's a lot of guests.

You know what else? It's a heck of a lot of your social media, which is my favorite part of the program. I really, really enjoy when you're reacting to me and I get to react to you in real time. What I most want to say is, please, know that every single broadcast in 10 years has been a privilege.

[09:55:01]

For so, so long, I wanted to have a program of my own and I never take this platform for granted. And as I said, on day one, in that commentary that is now rolling, in a polarized media landscape my mission, my goal, each and every day is to try and reach people of all perspectives. On a day-to-day basis, that's what I'm seeking to do.

I just want to reach everybody. I want people changing the channel, except when I'm on television, and mixing up their media diet. And I'm trying to give you a nice balanced presentation.

Most importantly, I want to also say this, the program works because I am surrounded by really good people. And there we are this week celebrating in New York City. David -- should I do this? Sure. And Chloe, and Corinna, and Catherine, my producer to my left, and Amelia, and Jorge, TC, not pictured but a large part of our team as well. We are all really, really grateful for this opportunity and we thank you.

Thank you for watching. And I'll see you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)