Slappy Statist Candidates for US President 2016

[(oYo)]

"Pro-Big Government Candidates for US President 2016"

What else is new?

It doesn't matter who you vote for, the result is the same. The same way a pyramid has a left and right side, both of these apparently opposing sides lead to the same point at the top. I honestly don't see how this hasn't become glaringly apparent to everyone when Barack Obama of the Democratic Party succeeded George W. Bush of the Republican Party, yet there was verily no change in government policies as was promised by Barack Obama's clever campaign slogan. If anything he stepped things up a notch, but you can't even call that change, since that's really just maintaining the status quo.

[1714049198]

1714049198

[1714049198]

1714049198

[1714049198]

1714049198

[jaysabi]

"Pro-Big Government Candidates for US President 2016"

What else is new?

It doesn't matter who you vote for, the result is the same. The same way a pyramid has a left and right side, both of these apparently opposing sides lead to the same point at the top. I honestly don't see how this hasn't become glaringly apparent to everyone when Barack Obama of the Democratic Party succeeded George W. Bush of the Republican Party, yet there was verily no change in government policies as was promised by Barack Obama's clever campaign slogan. If anything he stepped things up a notch, but you can't even call that change, since that's really just maintaining the status quo.

This is essentially why I'm not excited by the prospect of Rand Paul winning, as many people are in this forum. Because nothing will change, and he'll do all the things necessary to get re-elected and keep his party in power, not any of the things he's talking about right now.

[Chef Ramsay]

"Pro-Big Government Candidates for US President 2016"

What else is new?

It doesn't matter who you vote for, the result is the same. The same way a pyramid has a left and right side, both of these apparently opposing sides lead to the same point at the top. I honestly don't see how this hasn't become glaringly apparent to everyone when Barack Obama of the Democratic Party succeeded George W. Bush of the Republican Party, yet there was verily no change in government policies as was promised by Barack Obama's clever campaign slogan. If anything he stepped things up a notch, but you can't even call that change, since that's really just maintaining the status quo.

This is essentially why I'm not excited by the prospect of Rand Paul winning, as many people are in this forum. Because nothing will change, and he'll do all the things necessary to get re-elected and keep his party in power, not any of the things he's talking about right now.

As things stand, we're looking at a Clinton or a Bush as the default likelihoods of the next president of the USA. From a foreign policy perspective, how positive is that for certain areas of the world? Under a Paul admin, he'd be much more reserved in how the troops would be committed overseas and would actually have Congress declare war and make the people be united behind it rather than just the military industrial complex interests. Domestically, he would slash govt spending across the board for starters, assuming his party still controlled both chambers of Congress. One of his other big things are economic freedom zones which would jumpstart local economies, provide lasting jobs that are worthwhile and the showcase this success and drive a stake in the heart of big govt/progressivism for the next hundred years. There's plenty that will go in a better direction with him at the helm. W/o him, you can bet your bottom dollar that the US will continue to break down in every category that matters and its imprint on the world won't change.

[(oYo)]

There actually were a couple of US presidents who were keen on change.


I'm pretty sure if anyone like Ron Paul ever got into the oval office they'd just show him this clip and say, "You don't want to end up like this, do you?"

I also like to think Ron would tell them to stick it, but then I'm also pretty sure he'd end up just like JFK.

[jaysabi]

"Pro-Big Government Candidates for US President 2016"

What else is new?

It doesn't matter who you vote for, the result is the same. The same way a pyramid has a left and right side, both of these apparently opposing sides lead to the same point at the top. I honestly don't see how this hasn't become glaringly apparent to everyone when Barack Obama of the Democratic Party succeeded George W. Bush of the Republican Party, yet there was verily no change in government policies as was promised by Barack Obama's clever campaign slogan. If anything he stepped things up a notch, but you can't even call that change, since that's really just maintaining the status quo.

This is essentially why I'm not excited by the prospect of Rand Paul winning, as many people are in this forum. Because nothing will change, and he'll do all the things necessary to get re-elected and keep his party in power, not any of the things he's talking about right now.

Under a Paul admin, he'd be much more reserved in how the troops would be committed overseas and would actually have Congress declare war and make the people be united behind it rather than just the military industrial complex interests.

There was every reason to expect this from Obama too. These were his main criticisms against Bush, and the area he spoke most forcefully as a senator and candidate. The parallels to Paul are uncanny. I have no confidence Paul would be any more true to his word than Obama was. Promises give way to political considerations once elected. His word will be meaningless, what will matter is keeping power; the same concessions Obama made, with his integrity the victim. Fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice... you get the picture.

Domestically, he would slash govt spending across the board for starters, assuming his party still controlled both chambers of Congress. One of his other big things are economic freedom zones which would jumpstart local economies, provide lasting jobs that are worthwhile and the showcase this success and drive a stake in the heart of big govt/progressivism for the next hundred years. There's plenty that will go in a better direction with him at the helm. W/o him, you can bet your bottom dollar that the US will continue to break down in every category that matters and its imprint on the world won't change.

This is very optimistic. No president slashes spending. Ever. To believe they would is fantasy, imo. And as presidents don't really have the power to create jobs (short of big government programs that directly employ people) and have never been particularly successful at fostering economic environments that do with any certainty, expecting Paul to magically succeed where no one before him has reliably been able to do so is expecting a lot of magic from one man. (The failure of trickle down economics to deliver on the promises made for it is pretty convincing at this point.)

I've seen this level of hype before, and I've seen how disastrously that man delivered on his promises. I have no reason to expect Paul is different from every other politician. After all, he belongs to one of the two parties that run this country. These guys may have slightly different flavors here and there, but at the root, they're all the same.

[Chef Ramsay]

This is very optimistic. No president slashes spending. Ever. To believe they would is fantasy, imo. And as presidents don't really have the power to create jobs (short of big government programs that directly employ people) and have never been particularly successful at fostering economic environments that do with any certainty, expecting Paul to magically succeed where no one before him has reliably been able to do so is expecting a lot of magic from one man. (The failure of trickle down economics to deliver on the promises made for it is pretty convincing at this point.)

I've seen this level of hype before, and I've seen how disastrously that man delivered on his promises. I have no reason to expect Paul is different from every other politician. After all, he belongs to one of the two parties that run this country. These guys may have slightly different flavors here and there, but at the root, they're all the same.

The difference here is there is no comparison between Obama and Paul. There's two diametrically opposed ideologies where one is to fundamentally change America and this is what we've come to see in terms of the expansion and powers of government and the other is a true to form libertarian populist mentality of paring back govt to reasonable levels at minimum. I agree that most republicans haven't been trustworthy in terms of being true fiscal conservatives but that's the difference between run of the mill republicans and those of the libertarian brand which we've come to see more of in different parts of the country and Reps like Amash and Massie. Over and above the fact that Rand is a Paul, his voting record pretty much speaks for itself in libertarian terms. I'm just trying to help him get the nomination and then let the people decide between their choices and then so be it. If he's the head of the party by being at the top of the ticket, all other republicans running will have to push for and defend the way Rand positions himself and the rest of the party, for that matter, on the issues. Note how Obama had his majority leader line up the votes to pass things he wanted when he had the chance. Anyways, I shot my own self in the foot for getting into Rand Paul in this thread when I already showcase him in my other thread.

This thread is reserved for candidates that are running (or might run) in the two major parties for the upcoming primaries on either side and I get to deem who fits here and who doesn't. Not trying to be a jerk but Rand Paul would be showcased in this thread if he didn't have the dynamics as a person that he has including his voting record and the issues he champions, all or most of which are pro-liberty.

[Chef Ramsay]

Peter King’s path to the GOP nomination: Be the last man standing

King is working on something of a rope-a-dope strategy, letting the others tire themselves out in the hopes that he can be there in the end.

“My ideal situation is to be part of the debate and if I see that there is support building and others drop out, and there is a real opening and people who share my views come forward with funding,” he said.

King continued, “I go back to 2012 when you saw Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann. They all had a chance to get to the top without much money, and they were leading in the polls. If I get into their position I am not going to make the mistakes they did.”

This is a key part of King’s argument. He carries the brawling bearing of his father, a New York City police officer, but it may surprise people who have actually seen him that he has a polish some of his fellow Republican contenders do not.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/31/in-gop-presidential-contest-peter-king-s-race-for-second-place.html

This bozo is very hawkish and very pro police state surveillance and I've never noted him to have any fiscal restraint roots at all. Plus, he's been known to sympathize with Irish terrorists in the past. He's merely a Congressman and his main purpose is to troll an excessive foreign policy as the lynchpin of his campaign. Completely useless from our standpoint.

[Chef Ramsay]

Walker, eyeing 2016 White House bid, says he's open to sending US troops to fight ISIS

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate, said Sunday he is open to sending U.S. troops to the Middle East to defeat Islamic State fighters -- a bold foreign policy statement in contrast with the Obama administration’s position.

Walker told ABC’s “This Week” that he wouldn’t rule out sending troops, as Islamic State appears to grow and strengthen despite U.S.-led efforts to destroy the radical Islamic group.

“You can’t rule out anything,” Walker said. “Lives are at stake.”

More...http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/01/walker-on-roll-for-potential-2016-wh-bid-says-open-to-sending-us-troops-to/

I'm not really surprised by this but this guy's main claim to fame outside of being a republican governor of a purple state is that he battled the unions in his state and came out on top. He's on pretty good terms w/ my guy and I was hoping that he'd make a decent running mate should the situation arise. He starting to talk a little too hawkish tho.

[Chef Ramsay]

Huckabee compares being gay to using alcohol, profanity

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee on Sunday said being gay is akin to choosing to drink alcohol or use profanity - lifestyle choices he says are appealing to others but not to him.


The former Baptist pastor, who is weighing a second run for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, also claimed that forcing people of faith to accept gay marriage as policy is on par with telling Jews that they must serve "bacon-wrapped shrimp in their deli." That dish would run afoul of kosher rules in the same way Huckabee sees asking Christians to accept same-sex marriages.


"We're so sensitive to make sure we don't offend certain religions, but then we act like Christians can't have the convictions that they have had for over 2,000 years," Huckabee said.

Huckabee has made cultural issues the cornerstone of his likely White House bid. The former Baptist pastor is counting on social conservatives and evangelicals who have great clout in early nominating Iowa to help him.


His comments about gays and lesbians seem targeted at the conservative corners of his party.

More...http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GOP_2016_HUCKABEE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-02-01-12-58-46

He was a joke of a governor and go his nickname "tax hike mike" for a reason. This is what a social conservative looks like and why they're fading in relevance in the big picture tho they still have a solid sway in the primary battle

Somebody, order this man a double on the rocks would ya.

[jaysabi]

This is very optimistic. No president slashes spending. Ever. To believe they would is fantasy, imo. And as presidents don't really have the power to create jobs (short of big government programs that directly employ people) and have never been particularly successful at fostering economic environments that do with any certainty, expecting Paul to magically succeed where no one before him has reliably been able to do so is expecting a lot of magic from one man. (The failure of trickle down economics to deliver on the promises made for it is pretty convincing at this point.)

I've seen this level of hype before, and I've seen how disastrously that man delivered on his promises. I have no reason to expect Paul is different from every other politician. After all, he belongs to one of the two parties that run this country. These guys may have slightly different flavors here and there, but at the root, they're all the same.

The difference here is there is no comparison between Obama and Paul. There's two diametrically opposed ideologies where one is to fundamentally change America and this is what we've come to see in terms of the expansion and powers of government and the other is a true to form libertarian populist mentality of paring back govt to reasonable levels at minimum. I agree that most republicans haven't been trustworthy in terms of being true fiscal conservatives but that's the difference between run of the mill republicans and those of the libertarian brand which we've come to see more of in different parts of the country and Reps like Amash and Massie. Over and above the fact that Rand is a Paul, his voting record pretty much speaks for itself in libertarian terms. I'm just trying to help him get the nomination and then let the people decide between their choices and then so be it. If he's the head of the party by being at the top of the ticket, all other republicans running will have to push for and defend the way Rand positions himself and the rest of the party, for that matter, on the issues. Note how Obama had his majority leader line up the votes to pass things he wanted when he had the chance. Anyways, I shot my own self in the foot for getting into Rand Paul in this thread when I already showcase him in my other thread.

This thread is reserved for candidates that are running (or might run) in the two major parties for the upcoming primaries on either side and I get to deem who fits here and who doesn't. Not trying to be a jerk but Rand Paul would be showcased in this thread if he didn't have the dynamics as a person that he has including his voting record and the issues he champions, all or most of which are pro-liberty.

I'm not talking about the specific ideology, but the pattern of making grand promises of radical change they can't possibly deliver on by virtue of being part of one of the two parties requisite to achieve power in the first place, which will lock them into an inability to deliver on their promises. Notwithstanding the specifics of their ideologies, both have promised the same thing: radical change from how things are currently done, independence from special interests, etc. These things cannot be changed by one person who hopes to be reelected. You view everyone as having to change if Paul is elected to match his rhetoric, but it's far more probable Paul has to change to match the other 99% of the rhetoric, and he will because he's a politician with his own self-interest (reelection) at heart. The pattern is the same as Obama's presidential run, the 'outsider' against an out-of-control government. I'm not expecting a magic different result though this time.

Rand Paul has my vote for the primary, without question, because there's no one else worth voting for on either side. (I live in a state where you can only vote on one side, which is dumb.) But in the general election, I'll be back to someone who more closely represents libertarianism in Gary Johnson.

[jaysabi]

I should add, I'm not trying to torpedo your thread, I guess my intent was just to inject a little more realism into the expectations for him. I like Paul more than any other candidate running in the two main parties. Just the expectations I see people make on his behalf about how he's going to accomplish things no president has done before makes me uncomfortable. They just don't appear reasonable expectations to me. But I hope Paul gets the republican nomination, because there's no one else who deserves it.

[Chef Ramsay]

Rand Paul has my vote for the primary, without question, because there's no one else worth voting for on either side. (I live in a state where you can only vote on one side, which is dumb.) But in the general election, I'll be back to someone who more closely represents libertarianism in Gary Johnson.

Well, at least I'll give you props for helping out in the primary. I vote for lots of LP candidate each election but when there's a demonstrably proven libertarian-leaning republican running for federal office that maintains stances in favor of civil liberties and a restrained foreign policy then it's up to me as a Libertarian to lend that candidate (that has a way better chance of winning than the LP candidate) my vote, activism and maybe even my money. In a situation of practicality like this, the good is not the enemy of the perfect.

[Chef Ramsay]

Governor Walker Endorses the Bush Doctrine

Gov. Scott Walker wants the American military to be everywhere on earth.

“I think anywhere and everywhere, we have to go beyond just aggressive air strikes,” Walker said during a live interview on ABC’s This Week. “We need to have an aggressive strategy anywhere around the world.”


Walker is Republican governor of Wisconsin and considering running for president in 2016. Walker said

“I think when you have the lives of Americans at stake and our freedom loving allies anywhere in the world, we have to be prepared to do things that don’t allow those measures, those attacks, those abuses to come to our shores.”

This is the Bush Doctrine, which is for the U.S. to attack threats that it perceives even before they are actual threats, that is, to attack threats of threats. To quote what Bush proposed in full:

“The security environment confronting the United States today is radically different from what we have faced before. Yet the first duty of the United States Government remains what it always has been: to protect the American people and American interests. It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD.

More...http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/governor-walker-endorses-the-bush-doctrine/

[Chef Ramsay]

Is Lindsey Graham running for president to Troll Rand Paul?

On Thursday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) launched an exploratory committee for a 2016 presidential run, as Arlette Saenz of ABC News reported.
The committee, named "Security through Strength," will allow Graham to fundraise while he decides whether to officially launch a bid.
The committee's website implies that a Graham presidential bid will focus on foreign policy. It quotes Graham citing Ronald Reagan's "Peace Through Strength" policy for the Cold War, and adds that for "radical Islam," whose "followers are committed to destroying us and our way of life," Graham's own policy will be "Security through Strength."

What it means

More...http://www.vox.com/2015/1/29/7944905/lindsey-graham-president-2016


Lindsey Graham: Send 10,000 U.S. Ground Troops to Fight Islamic State

Senator Lindsey Graham wants to put 10,000 "boots on the ground" to confront the Islamic State

The South Carolina Republican, who on Thursday premiered a political action committee aimed at exploring a run for president, told Face the Nation on Sunday that the terrorist organization could launch an attack on the U.S. that would be like "Paris on steroids" and that the group won't stop executing hostages aide workers and journalists until "they're degraded and destroyed."

"An aerial campaign will not destroy them," Graham said. "You're going to need boots on the ground, not only in Iraq, but in Syria."

Host Norah O'Donnell said the Islamic State effectively controls 20,000 square miles in those two countries, and the group released a video on Friday that appears to show the execution of Japanese hostage Kenji Goto. Graham called Iraq and Syria the "best platforms to launch an attack on [the] United States" since 9/11.

Graham said he thought aerial strikes, which have been ongoing against the group, have helped push it back but that "there's got to be some regional force formed with an American component, somewhere around 10,000" in order to stop the group.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who is considering his own run for president in 2016, also said on Sunday that "ultimately, we have to be prepared to put boots on the ground," although he said that wasn't "an immediate plan."

Sending ground troops to Iraq and Syria may play well in the upcoming GOP primary. Fifty-seven percent of Republicans support the idea, according to a Pew poll released in October. Conversely, the issue could be a liability in the general election as 55 percent of respondents from both parties opposed sending in ground troops.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-01/lindsey-graham-send-10-000-u-s-ground-troops-to-fight-islamic-state

[Chef Ramsay]

Chris Christie Shows Fondness for Luxury Benefits When Others Pay the Bill

As Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey waited to depart on a trade mission to Israel in 2012, his entourage was delayed by a late arrival: Mr. Christie’s father, who had accidentally headed to the wrong airport.

A commercial flight might have left without him, but in this case, there was no rush. The private plane, on which Mr. Christie had his own bedroom, had been lent by Sheldon G. Adelson, the billionaire casino owner and supporter of Israel. At the time, he was opposing legislation then before the governor to legalize online gambling in New Jersey.

Mr. Christie loaded the plane with his wife, three of his four children, his mother-in-law, his father and stepmother, four staff members, his former law partner and a state trooper.

King Abdullah of Jordan picked up the tab for a Christie family weekend at the end of the trip. The governor and two staff members who accompanied him came back to New Jersey bubbling that they had celebrated with Bono, the lead singer of U2, at three parties, two at the king’s residence, the other a Champagne reception in the desert. But a small knot of aides fretted: The rooms in luxurious Kempinski hotels had cost about $30,000; what would happen if that became public?

More...http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/nyregion/in-christies-career-a-fondness-forluxe-benefits-when-others-pay-the-bills.html?_r=0

The rest of this story is pretty interesting and really shows what kind of guy he is. He'd probably outdo Obama in terms of the costs of the vacations he would take, if that's even possible.

[Chef Ramsay]

Eyeing 2016, Walker adds veteran operatives to political team

(CNN)Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has hired several more key operatives to staff a new political committee that he recently established as he considers a run for the Republican presidential nomination, CNN has learned.

Kirsten Kukowski, deputy communications director/press secretary for the Republican National Committee, will serve as communications director for Walker's "Our American Revival" and several members of the Tarrance Group will conduct polling and provide strategic political advice to the governor.

READ: Jeb Bush adds veteran consultants to likely campaign team

Ed Goeas, president and CEO of Tarrance, will serve as a senior adviser, while partner Brian Tringali and senior vice president B.J. Martino will oversee polling. Tringali and Martino have worked for Walker in his previous gubernatorial campaigns.

In addition, Mark Stephenson, who worked on Joni Ernst's successful Iowa Senate campaign among others, has signed on as Walker's chief data officer.

More...http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/02/politics/scott-walker-2016-campaign-hires/index.html

Walker really looks like he's going for it and is on top of the polls at this early stage, at least in Iowa which is the site of the first caucus in the country. He's from a nearby state, so no surprise there.

[jaysabi]

Rand Paul has my vote for the primary, without question, because there's no one else worth voting for on either side. (I live in a state where you can only vote on one side, which is dumb.) But in the general election, I'll be back to someone who more closely represents libertarianism in Gary Johnson.

Well, at least I'll give you props for helping out in the primary. I vote for lots of LP candidate each election but when there's a demonstrably proven libertarian-leaning republican running for federal office that maintains stances in favor of civil liberties and a restrained foreign policy then it's up to me as a Libertarian to lend that candidate (that has a way better chance of winning than the LP candidate) my vote, activism and maybe even my money. In a situation of practicality like this, the good is not the enemy of the perfect.

I definitely see the validity in this line of thinking, but I land on the other side in saying that this is why third parties can't get traction. The two parties conspire to keep everyone else out through ballot access laws, and people are convinced that the two party system can be changed within the confines of the two party system. I hope I'm wrong, but my prediction is Paul will move to the conservative base to win support, rather than having the conservative base come to him (which I never see happening en masse). I know I've stated it before, but the precedent I'm basing this on is the way Obama completely sold out the foreign policy he ran on once he was elected. There was no way he could have been reelected if he had stuck to what he promised: less war, congressional approval for military interventions, closing Guantanamo, etc. Hell, Obama's government assassinated American citizens, and told us the legal justification that gave him permission to do that was classified. There's no more grave abuse of executive power than that, and after he made his political career on the premise that the president is not all-powerful. The promises he made gave way to political reality, and it forever jaded the way I will look at how politicians act in our two party system.

[Chef Ramsay]

NH1 Pulse Poll: Walker surges to top with Romney's exit; Bush second

CONCORD - New Hampshire may have a new front-runner in the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

The first survey conducted in the first-in-the-nation primary state since Mitt Romney's exit from the 2016 White House race indicates that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker leads the pack of potential Republican presidential contenders.

According to an NH1 Pulse Poll released Wednesday, Walker has the backing of 21.2% of those who say they're likely to vote in next year's GOP presidential primary. The automated survey indicates Jeb Bush in second place, with 14.4% saying they'd support the former two-term Florida governor if the Feb. 9, 2016 primary was held now.

The poll was conducted Monday and Tuesday, after Romney's announcement last Friday that he wouldn't make a third run for the White House. The 2012 GOP nominee and former Massachusetts governor, who owns a vacation home along Lake Winnipesaukee, is very well known in New Hampshire and would have been the front-runner in the primary if he had launched a campaign.

A NH1 Pulse Poll conducted two weeks ago put Romney at 29% support, far ahead of the rest of the field. Bush was at 11% and Walker was at 8% in that same survey.

In his announcement, Romney said "I believe that one of our next generation of Republican leaders, one who may not be as well-known as I am today, one who has not yet taken their message across the country, one who is just getting started, may well emerge as being better able to defeat the Democrat nominee. In fact, I expect and hope that to be the case."

The poll suggests that Walker may possibly be that Republican leader. First elected governor in 2010 in a state that leans towards the Democrats, Walker became a national hero to many conservatives thanks to his high profile 2011-2012 battle against state public sector unions over collective bargaining rights.

More...http://www.nh1.com/news/nh1-pulse-poll-walker-surges-to-top-with-romneys-exit-bush-second/

[Chef Ramsay]

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's Administration Facing New Criminal Investigation

[Federal authorities have launched a criminal investigation into New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, as well as members of his administration, a man at the center of the investigation told ABC News.

The U.S. attorney’s office in New Jersey has interviewed former Hunterdon County Assistant Prosecutor Bennett Barlyn, who claims he was fired because he objected to Christie officials dismissing indictments against political allies of the governor. Barlyn confirmed the investigation to ABC News. It was first reported by the International Business Times.

“It is true,” Barlyn told ABC News, saying he was interviewed by federal authorities at his Pennsylvania home this week. “I also provided the investigators with names of people I thought could furnish firsthand information.”

Barlyn said he was not sure whether others have been questioned for the investigation.

Barlyn was dismissed from the Hunterdon County Prosecutor’s Office in September 2010 and later brought a whistleblower case against the Christie administration that currently is in the discovery phase. He has consistently said he was fired for objecting to the quashing of indictments against the county’s sheriff and two subordinates -- all political supporters of Christie’s.

The governor’s office previously has dismissed the accusations as being “conspiratorial nonsense.”

State officials have repeatedly denied Barlyn’s accusations and, in court filings, they said that the decision to dismiss the indictment was within the discretion of New Jersey’s top law-enforcement officials. They have argued Barlyn has no case and doesn’t even have the right to sue under state law.

The federal prosecutor's probe centers on why Christie’s then-attorney general, Paula Dow, dismissed the indictments.

Dow has rejected Barlyn's accusations, saying the indictment was flawed and Barlyn was fired for “legitimate business reasons,” according to NJ.com.

In a February 2014 interview, Barlyn outlined some of his grievances. He told ABC News' Jim Avila that all the evidence his former office obtained during its “two-year investigation was suddenly shipped back to [the state capital] Trenton. ... physically taken out of our office and taken to the attorney general's office.”

He called it “highly unusual,” adding, “The head of our special investigations unit who was heading the investigation was very abruptly taken off the case two weeks before the dismissal.”

Barlyn called the relationships between those being investigated and Christie “compelling,” adding “there’s simply photographic evidence” showing Christie “associating with these individuals.”

In the interview, Barlyn claimed he was fired for “political reasons.” He said the state attorney general gave him no explanation for his dismissal.

“I asked for one and was told that I wasn't entitled to an explanation,” Barlyn said. “I gave up my access to the building. I returned home again completely in the dark although I had a feeling of what precipitated the dismissal. My Internet connection to the office was cut off. And three weeks later I received a one-page faxed dismissal letter from the director of the Division of Criminal Justice. Again, no reason was given of why I was terminated after 18 years of being ... a state and county prosecutor with a pretty good rep.”/quote]

More...http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jersey-gov-chris-christie-criminal-investigation/story?id=28753740

[Chef Ramsay]

Politico discusses the longshot candidates
Another GOP circus in 2016?
A lineup of long shots crowds the Republican field.

The Republican 2016 presidential field includes three politicians — George Pataki, Jim Gilmore and Bob Ehrlich — who last won election when the flip phone was hot technology. Also making moves to run are John Bolton, who is best remembered as an architect of George W. Bush’s WMD strategy and has never held elected office, and Peter King, the longtime Long Island congressman who’s made his biggest headlines hitting conservatives.

And don’t forget about former Hewlett-Packard CEO and failed California senatorial candidate Carly Fiorina — another accomplished figure who’s perceived to have next to no chance of becoming the Republican standard-bearer.
Story Continued Below

Welcome to 2016’s “Why not me?” primary: a low-stakes, little-covered tussle among below-the-radar Republicans who say they could be president. After seeing other presumed has-beens like Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich become real factors in 2012, they see little downside in taking a shot.

But for the GOP, which is already wrestling with a large group of would-be contenders, the presence of these former governors and senators and prominent officials presents an extra complication. They’re trying to avoid the circus-like atmosphere, fueled by candidates desperate for attention, that tainted many of the 2012 primary debates.

More...http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/another-gop-circus-in-2016-114979.html?cmpid=sf