UPDATED: Obama and Trudeau tell UN "Let's all be nice to each other"

Not all of Walt's readers pay a lot of attention to the intersection of American politics and Canadian politics. But you have to be have your anti-liberal blinkers firmly in place to not see the fine bromance that has developed between the Prez and Canada's ultra-photogenic new(ish) Prime Minister Justin "Selfie" Trudeau.

Sadly for their countries, the two amigos share not just a love of the adoration of the masses, but liberal, one-world views on globalization, free trade, refugees and immigrants (especially Muslims), and the war on The Enemy Which Cannot Be Named (especially Muslims). Now that President Obama is the lamest duck of all, Justin ("Himself Redux") is bidding fair to become the leader of the forces of liberalism, secular humanism and the war for "social justice". To him, from President 0's failing hands, the torch of progressivism is about to be thrown. (The Prez's preferred recipient, Hellery Clinton, is, alas, not guaranteed to be well enough to lift her arms high enough to make the catch.)

Messrs Obama and Trudeau were in the Big Apple this week to case a few pearls before the swine at the Disunited Nations. Some have suggested that Ahmed Khan Rahami was out to get the Prez when he planted his little bomb in Chelsea. (Shoulda used a GPS, Ahmed!) If he had, the assembled parasites would have been spared a speech in which POTUS actually admitted that his country was going to have to give up its "freedom of action" and "bind itself to international rules". If you think Walt is making this up, click here. Don't say you weren't warned.

Here's part of what Ted Cruz had to say about Mr Obama's suggestion that the US surrender to the Islamists. "At the United Nations today, President Obama took to the podium to once again blame the United States for the woes of the world. He suggested our country is just one of many that need to get beyond the old divisions of nationality. He chided those who would limit the inflow of refugees from nations infiltrated by Islamic terrorists as ignorant bigots, predicted climate change would destroy countries and cause mass conflicts, and referred to Israel as an occupying power. Mr. Obama would have done much better to use this opportunity to advance an American agenda, not a global one."

Mr Obama's speech was a pretty hard act to follow -- or swallow -- but M Trudeau tried out his "sunny ways" shtick on a half-empty General Assembly. In an article headlined "Mission accomplished: Trudeau wins over UN with strange speech full of liberal platitudes", John Ivison writes: "The lesson from both Obama and Trudeau is that if everyone just did more nice things, and not so many awful things, things would be much nicer." That's all ye know and all ye need to know.

Further reading, added 23/9/16: Rex Murphy calls Justin Trudeau's UN address "a meaningless speech to a worthless body": National Post, 23/9/16.

UPDATED: Ryan to be a heartbeat away from succeeding Pres. Trump?

Lyin' Ted Cruz said that he's stay in the race for the presidensity as long as there was a viable path to the nomination. Last night he said his path had been foreclosed. That's how politicians talk. He wouldn't say he got thumped by Trump. Oh no. His path has been "foreclosed". So that's that, then. There's only one more putative candidate left. Of him, CNN politics says "John Kasich is not going anywhere". Truer words were never spoken.

Meanwhile, and still in Indiana, Bernie Sanders eked out a win over Hellery Clinton. Because of the Democrats' crooked nominating system -- having 100s of insider "super-delegates" pretty much screws an outsider like Sanders -- la Clinton is still likely to wind up riding the Dem Donkey, even though she enjoys only lukewarm support from the majority of her party.

And that, dear reader, means there's at least a 50-50 chance that The Donald will be the next POTUS. If I could get Trump plus 6 points, let's say, I'd put my $$$ on the table right now. And that means that Mr. Trump, the Republicans and Americans of all stripes need to start thinking hard about who should be Vice-President (VPOTUS), because... as they say... that person will be only a heartbeat away from becoming President and all that entails.

For a country with a short history -- 240 years isn't much compared with China or even the UK -- the Paranoid States of America has had more than its share of presidents who have died in office, of either natural or unnatural causes. Four sitting presidents have been killed, all of them by gunshot: Abraham Lincoln (the 16th President), James A. Garfield (the 20th President), William McKinley (the 25th President) and John F. Kennedy (the 35th President). That's an average of one every 60 years. It's been 53 years since JFK was assassinated, so do the math.

Indeed, Mr Trump might not even make it through to November 8th. Remember what happened to Bobby Kennedy? To George Wallace? Don't tell me that The Donald is any less hated than those guys, either of whom might have won but for a case of severe lead poisoning. All it would take would be another murderous Muslim (Sirhan Sirhan) or loonie leftie (Lee Harvey Oswald), or just some nebbish who wants to get his name in the papers (John Hinckley). So Mr Trump's choice of candidate for VPOTUS is more important than at any time so far this century.

In last night's victory speech, Mr Trump went easy on Mr Cruz. No more "lyin' Ted". In fact he called his opponent "a helluva contender". Could we be looking at a Trump-Cruz ticket? It would sure as hell give Establishment Republicans a reason to do their utmost to keep The Donald alive and viable, because although they hate Trump, they loathe Cruz!

Seriously, though... as the stand-up comic says... I can't see Mr Cruz taking the VP nomination, even if it were offered to him. And I don't think the job will be offered to Carly Fiorina, in the name of gender parity -- not after her amazing speech last week. In 1972, Tom Eagleton proved that a candidate for the second-highest office in the land can't have "issues".

Who, then? Mr Trump will be under pressure to offer a sop to the Republican Establishment -- some harmless, centrist, non-WASP from one of the southern or western states -- to balance the ticket. That would seem to suggest Marco Rubio, a "progressive Republican" with more ambition than brains who already has the GOP grandees' seal of approval. Mr Rubio has the added advantage of being young and lightly Hispanic, appealing (it says here) to the kind of voters Mr Trump has trouble with. But Senator Rubio and The Candidate had some prettyh nasty things to say about each other during the primaries, so a public burying of the hatchet will be awkward, if not downright laughable.

If not Mr Rubio, then who? Walt repeats his call for Paul. If something should, God forbid, happen to President Trump, Paul is the kind of man I'd have confidence in to lead the USA along the path to peace and prosperity. Donald, if you're reading this, don't listen to those other guys; listen to me! Have I ever given you a bum steer? (Lifetime pct .988.)

Further reading: "House Speaker Paul Ryan refuses to back Donald Trump", on the CBC News website, 5/5/16. Mr. Ryan said "I'm just not ready to do that at this point. I'm not there right now." My emphasis.

UPDATE AND WOW! "House Speaker Paul Ryan to meet with Donald Trump next week to talk 'Republican principles'" Reuters via CBC News, 6/5/16. That didn't take long, did it...

America is still "Nixonland" (book recommendation)

A kindly old lady from Whittier CA had this to say about a Republican candidate. "I know it's against religion to hate anybody, but I just can't help hating that man." To whom was she referring? Not Donald Trump, not Ted Cruz, but... wait for it... Richard Nixon. The quote is taken from the opening pages of Rick Perlstein's monumental book Nixonland (Scribner, 2008), which Walt commends to anyone trying to make sense of this year's campaign.

Mr. Perlstein chose to write about Nixon and his times in 2008, 40 years after he was elected President, because (as the cliché goes) history repeats itself. Over and over again. The book, you see, is not really about Mr. Nixon so much as the disintegration of the liberal consensus of the Kennedy-Johnson years and the polarization of American politics. The 1968 election pitted the friends of Nixon against the enemies of Nixon. The author writes:

Nixonland...is the America where two separate and irreconcilable sets of apocalyptic fears coexist in the minds of two separate and irreconcilable groups of Americans. The first group, enemies of Richard Nixon, are the spiritual heirs of [Adlai] Stevenson and [John Kenneth] Galbraith. They take it as an axiom that if Richard Nixon and the values associated with him triumph, America itself might end.

The second group are the people who...believe, as did Nixon [himself] that if the enemies of Nixon triumph -- the Alger Hisses and Helen Gahagan Douglases, the Herblocks and hippies, the George McGoverns and all the rest -- America might end.

The [Democratic National Committee] was right: an amazingly large segment of the population disliked and mistrusted Richard Nixon instinctively. What they did not acknowledge was that an amazingly large segment of the population also trusted him as their savior. "Nixonland> is what happens when these two groups try to occupy a country together. By the end of the 1960s, Nixonland came to encompass the entire political culture of the United States. It would define it, in fact, for the next fifty years.

Let's see. 1968 plus 50 years brings us to... 2018. Who will be POTUS and Leader of the Free World then? Whether the Republicans pick Mr Trump or Senator Cruz, or the Democrats pick Senator Sanders or Secretary Clinton, is immaterial. In November supporters of both candidates, red and blue, will be utterly convinced that if their enemies win, America will end.

Talk of uniting the nation is rubbish. The cracks in American society and politics which appeared with the Watts race riots of 1965, have grown wider and deeper. The nation needs a catharsis. But will it get one? That's up to the voters, who, Mr. Perlstein says, are the real heroes of his book. Read it.

Reflections on South Carolina and Nevada

There were no upset winners in yesterday's Democratic caucus in Nevada or South Carolina's Republican primary. There were, however, a couple of losers.

One loser was apparent and expected. That would be JEB! All the Establishment money couldn't save him, nor could his little big brother's endorsement. See "Republican voters: WATCH 'Fahrenheit 9/11'!" (WWW 17/2/16) So now JEB! has bid us a tearful farewell. Or has he?! How come no putative candidates quit any more? Why do they just "suspend" their campaigns? Are we to believe that if some horrible accident should befall the Donald (just sayin'), JEB! will rise Lazarus-like from his crypt in Coral Gables?

If you think about it, the big loser in the Republican primary wasn't JEB!, but Ted Cruz. At one point last night he was deadlocked with Marco Rubio, with exactly the same number of votes. In the end, Mr. Rubio squeaked into a distant second place, finishing ahead of TrusTED by just over 1000 votes. Mr. Rubio thus becomes the "moderate" or Establishment alternative to Mr. Trump, leaving Mr. Cruz, errr, nowhere.

Not really a surprise, since he was never going to get many MOR [= Middle Of the Road. Ed.] GOP votes. They hate him. To beat the Donald or even come close, Ted had to get the Tea Party voters, not just the happy-clappy Protestant fundamentalists. Too bad for him that the Tea Partiers hate him too.

Before we leave the Republicans, take a look at the results map appearing in today's Washington Post. The only counties who went for Mr. Rubio were around the state capital and along the coast near Charleston. Mr. Trump swept the rest. Those who think that the media darling SC governor's tearing down of the Southern Cross represented the true feelings of South Carolinians should give their heads a shake!

As for Nevada, Hellery Clinton's cries of victory seemed to me more relief than exultation. CNNPolitics calls her win "decisive", but they would say that, wouldn't they. Walt doesn't call 5.5% decisive, especially when you consider that just a couple of weeks ago her margin was expected to be in the double digits. Entrance and exit polls showed that Madame Clinton was backed by a majority of women, college-educated voters, those with annual incomes over $100,000, moderates, voters aged 45 and older and non-white voters. Bernie Sanders did best with men, voters under 45 and those less affluent and educated.

The once and (she hopes) future First Lady captured the backing of voters who said electability and experience were important. BERNie, however, did best with voters looking for a candidate who is caring and honest. That an aged socialist Jew from New England should come as close as he did in a state like Nevada tells me that Hellerey is far from home and dry. Keep looking over your shoulder, dear. The footsteps behind you aren't just Bill's!

Only one surprise out of New Hampshire

I wasn't surprised that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders won.
I wasn't surprised John Kasich finished second in the Republican race. I think that's as close as he's going to come to winning any of the remaining primaries. (Lifetime pct .983.)
I wasn't surprised that Marco Rubio finished fifth. Hey, I saw the debate.
What surprised me was that Jeb! managed to finish in a statistical tie with Ted Cruz. Did a memo go out from the Republican Establishment that Mr. Rubio isn't ready yet? (Nice hair though!)

So where are we now? There wasn't as much "winnowing" last night as the pundits predicted. Chris Christie is out, but he wasn't going anywhere anyway. Carly Fiorina and the black guy -- what was his name, again? -- have yet to announce the "suspension" of their campaigns, but so what. The Republicans are left with The Donald and Ted Cruz who have to slug it out to see who can be more of an "outsider", leaving the possibility that The Shrub may come up the middle and emerge as the candidate. The mind boggles.

On the Democratic side, it's hard to see Colonel Sanders winning states like South Carolina. A betting man would still have to take Hellery Clinton. Do it now while you can still get decent odds.

Oh, there was one more surprise. Who would have thought that Bernie could ramble on for so long, and reiterate the same point so often, in what should have been a short and gracious thank-you speech. I'm guessing that every minute he spoke, after the first ten, caused another million dollars or so to pour into the candidates' war chests -- not just the Republican war chests, but Mrs Clinton's too!