<div dir="ltr">Ackerman will again appear on Smerconish this morning (actually, he's probably already started, since he was supposed to be appearing in the first hour). His topic is Michael Bloomberg and getting a third candidate onto the debate stage.<div><br></div><div>It seems he'll be repeating his flawed premise that the American people are dying for a "moderate" (are salt bans moderate? are his views on guns somehow "in the middle"?) and that the solution to the duopoly is a moderate he can take credit for inserting into the debates.</div><div><br></div><div>Smerconish, for his part, will nod along and agree, and claim that the high percentage of voters not registered as R or D "proves" this claim, ignoring the states that don't have partisan registration, the fact that many of those candidates are registered in parties in with their own beliefs (such as us, of course), not "moderates," that third parties and independents are not the same thing, and that there is no principled reason to read all opposition to Rs and Ds as support for a corrupt billionaire who banned salt and large soda, and who used his position as Mayor of a small city to attempt to bully several states into changing their gun laws. </div><div><br></div><div>Why do I suspect Bloomberg would win Ackerman's "primary debate" proposal - which involves a series of candidates being voted "off the island," Survivor style (and run by the guy who ran Survivor), until only one makes it to the real stage?</div><div><br></div><div><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Joshua A. Katz<div>Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)</div></div></div></div>
</div></div>