Obama backs Booker
August 21st, 2013
10:51 AM ET
1 year ago

Obama backs Booker

(CNN) – In an announcement with little surprise, President Barack Obama officially endorsed Newark Mayor Cory Booker in the U.S. Senate special election in New Jersey.

The president praised the Democratic mayor for his work in public office in a statement released Wednesday by Booker's campaign.

"Cory Booker has dedicated his life to the work of building hope and opportunity in communities where too little of either existed," Obama said.

The president also argued Booker "will be an important partner in our efforts to reduce gun violence, give every American a fair shot in a global economy, and make our country stronger."

The two-term mayor had a strong presence in Obama's re-election campaign last year and delivered a high-profile speech at the Democratic National Convention.

Last week he won his state's Democratic primary in the special election to replace the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg, who passed away in early June. The latest poll indicates Booker has a double-digit lead over his Republican opponent, Steve Lonegan, in the largely-blue state.

The special election is set for October 16.

Booker said he was "humbled" by the president's support.

"I look forward to continuing to work with him to advance an agenda that spreads prosperity and ensures that our nation realizes the promise of its founding," he said in a statement.


Filed under: Cory Booker • New Jersey • President Obama
soundoff (40 Responses)
  1. Data Driven

    Booker should be humbled by the President's statement. Obama doesn't owe him much, especially after Booker called Obama "anti-business" in order to impress his friends on Morning Joe.

    August 21, 2013 10:57 am at 10:57 am |
  2. just saying

    wow! this is a real shocker!! bwahahahaha!! right along with sun rises in the east....

    i guess after being put in his place by the obama adminstration, aka 'cory bookered', cory booker has learned his place. under the thumb of the obama administration. his allegiance to the state and people of nj will come second and third, maybe lower if you toss in the unions, planned parenthood, etc.

    August 21, 2013 11:09 am at 11:09 am |
  3. Peppy

    Too bad for Booker

    August 21, 2013 11:16 am at 11:16 am |
  4. Fair is Fair

    Obama picks a winner in a one-horse race. Some hard-hitting news here.

    August 21, 2013 11:29 am at 11:29 am |
  5. Gurgyl

    He is not charismatic. He is like vermilion that changes colors.

    August 21, 2013 11:41 am at 11:41 am |
  6. Rudy NYC

    Fair is Fair wrote:

    Obama picks a winner in a one-horse race. Some hard-hitting news here.
    --------------------
    The Great One has never lost. <- – – – WARNING: Sarcasm may present in unknown concentrations.

    August 21, 2013 11:49 am at 11:49 am |
  7. Donna

    "Cory Booker has dedicated his life to the work of building hope and opportunity in communities where too little of either existed," Obama said.
    --
    So just what has he actually accomplished??? We've heard this hope BS before in 2008 and 2012. Hope don't pay the rent.

    The president also argued Booker "will be an important partner in our efforts to reduce gun violence, give every American a fair shot in a global economy, and make our country stronger."
    -–
    So in other words, Booker will vote for gun bans, green energy boondoogles and more wealth redistribution through our tax system. All of which make our country WEAKER. Obama make Cory Booker sound like another leftist puppet.

    August 21, 2013 11:52 am at 11:52 am |
  8. emskadittle

    Clinton/ Booker 2016

    August 21, 2013 11:53 am at 11:53 am |
  9. Rudy NYC

    Donna wrote:

    So in other words, Booker will vote for gun bans, green energy boondoogles and more wealth redistribution through our tax system. All of which make our country WEAKER.
    ---------------
    Stop and take a deep breathe. George W. Bush did all of the above. His right wing Congress failed to renew the assault weapons ban. His administration created the green energy program [back when the right wing supported all forms of energy production. Palin campaign on it in 2008. Remember?] that found and enlisted companies, specifically Solyndra.

    Finally, the Bush Tax Cuts have been described as the greatest wealth redistribution tax policy of all time. The rich got richer, while middle class wages fell. Heck, Bush even increased the size of government on the sly. By privatizing so many services, better known as government paid contractors, the size of government mushroomed under Bush.

    August 21, 2013 12:07 pm at 12:07 pm |
  10. Dutch/Bad Newz, VA -aka- Take Back The House -aka- No Redemption Votes

    Slow news day I see.

    August 21, 2013 12:07 pm at 12:07 pm |
  11. Donna

    Rudy NYC

    Donna wrote:
    George W. Bush did all of the above. His right wing Congress failed to renew the assault weapons ban. His administration created the green energy program [back when the right wing supported all forms of energy production. Palin campaign on it in 2008. Remember?] that found and enlisted companies, specifically Solyndra.
    --

    Here we go again. Everything was George Bush's fault... 5 years later, the same old tired left wing song and dance.

    BYW, failing to renew the assault weapons ban is not banning guns. And it took the incompetent Obama administration to override the judgement to NOT give Solyndra loan guarantees when it was clear the company was going down. It was very nice and convenient that one of Obama campaign contributors got rich at the tax payers expense.

    Finally, the Bush Tax Cuts have been described as the greatest wealth redistribution tax policy of all time. The rich got richer, while middle class wages fell. Heck, Bush even increased the size of government on the sly. By privatizing so many services, better known as government paid contractors, the size of government mushroomed under Bush.
    --
    News flash, the Bush Tax cuts went to tens of millions of middle class workers. Everybody who actually paid taxes got a cut. Remember, it is the same tax cuts Obama would not revoke? Bush let more taxpayers keep THEIR MONEY.

    BTW, hiring private contractors to perform a task is not privatizing a service. It has been done since the beginning of time. You are rather clueless abou tthe real world.

    August 21, 2013 12:18 pm at 12:18 pm |
  12. PaulCat

    Thank you Mr. President. My whole adult family is going to vote for Booker.

    ......and for you GOP'er, it doesn't matter how long we have to stand in line!

    August 21, 2013 12:32 pm at 12:32 pm |
  13. Mikey

    @Rudy NYC – "Finally, the Bush Tax Cuts have been described as the greatest wealth redistribution tax policy of all time. The rich got richer, while middle class wages fell. Heck, Bush even increased the size of government "
    *************************************************************
    The ideologs on the right may never figure this out... and if they do, they will never admit they were wrong. I wonder if they will ever come to realize or admit that under President Obama our annual budget deficit has been reduced more than at any time in our history – $750 billion in just four years. There's actual reality and there's the right wing pretend universe and never the twain shall meet.

    BTW, can @Gurgyl explain the phrase, "He is like vermilion that changes colors." Does he mean chameleon??? Sarah Palin fan?

    August 21, 2013 12:36 pm at 12:36 pm |
  14. Rudy NYC

    Donna wrote:

    Finally, the Bush Tax Cuts have been described as the greatest wealth redistribution tax policy of all time. The rich got richer, while middle class wages fell. Heck, Bush even increased the size of government on the sly. By privatizing so many services, better known as government paid contractors, the size of government mushroomed under Bush.
    -
    News flash, the Bush Tax cuts went to tens of millions of middle class workers. Everybody who actually paid taxes got a cut. Remember, it is the same tax cuts Obama would not revoke? Bush let more taxpayers keep THEIR MONEY.

    BTW, hiring private contractors to perform a task is not privatizing a service. It has been done since the beginning of time. You are rather clueless abou tthe real world.
    -----------------------–
    BREAKING NEWS: The first round of Bush Tax Cuts went almost exclusively to big business and the wealthy, Bush's so called "job creators". The second round of Bush Tax Cuts went mostly to the "job creators". The rest went to low income earners, and even less went to the middle class. Not everyone got a tax cut. Bush handed out "early tax refund" checks in the summer of 2004, but you had to repay it on your 2005 fedreral tax returns. In other words, you got a smaller refund, if any.

    Secondly, laying off federal emplyees and replacing them with contractors that do not show up on the government payrolls as government employees IS privatization.

    No one is blaming Bush. But the right wing loves to blame Bush's ongoing policy failures on Pres. Obama. Sorry, you cannot blame failed policies that had been enacted into law under one on the next guy. There's nothing the next guy can about it until the law expires, assuming that it has a sunset date.

    August 21, 2013 12:39 pm at 12:39 pm |
  15. Sniffit

    " ussc has already decided groups can participate in elections. citizens united. ever hear of it? it is decided law. live with it, just like you tell everybody to live with obamacare."

    Seriously? Nice straw man argument. Nobody is saying they can't participate, so stop with the hyperventilating overreactions based on deliberately misinterpreting what was said. Citizens United does NOT give groups the right to be tax-exempt while participating in politics. All it did was open the door to unlimited spending and make it much harder to contain when and where and how much and in what manner they can spend. NOWHERE in that decision does it say that groups engaged in unlimited spending on electioneering are entitled to be tax exempt. NOWHERE. My post and the article it was under were about 501(c)(4) status. You, instead, decided you'd pretend that wasn't what I was talking about. That's cheap and dishonest.

    August 21, 2013 12:42 pm at 12:42 pm |
  16. Mikey

    @Donna – Sorry, history matters. It matters that Bush DOUBLED the national debt. It matters that Reagan TRIPLED it. It matters that Bill Clinton is the last President to balance the federal budget. It matters that if you look at the increase in national debt as a percentage of GDP over the past 70 years almost Republican Adminsitrations have been MUCH worse than Democratic Administrations. It matters that 6 out of 7 recessions over the past 50 years occurred under Republican presidents. It matters that over the past 30 years since the Regan Revolution, largely Conservative economic (trickle down) policies have led to a doubling of incomes (adjusted for inflation) for the top 1 or 2%, while 90% of the population has been losing ground. History matters.

    August 21, 2013 12:45 pm at 12:45 pm |
  17. Steveo

    @Rudy,
    Heck, Bush even increased the size of government on the sly. By privatizing so many services, better known as government paid contractors, the size of government mushroomed under Bush.
    ----------
    Huh? Goverment paid contractors are NOT government employees. They work for PRIVATE companies (non-government). Your own words " By privatizing so many services": That would be the key.."PRIVATIZING".

    August 21, 2013 12:50 pm at 12:50 pm |
  18. Sniffit

    "History matters."

    Not inside their bubble it doesn't. Heck, a poll just came out today that showed that 29% of LA Republicans blame Obama for the poor response to Katrina, which occurred 3 years before he even became president and while he was just a freshman Senator. That was less than the percentage, 28%, that blamed Bush. A full 44% didn't know whether to blame Bush or Obama. THE BUBBLE. Coming to a voting booth near you.

    August 21, 2013 12:53 pm at 12:53 pm |
  19. Sniffit

    Edit, oops:

    "That was less than the percentage, 28%, that blamed Bush. "

    Should have read "more than."

    August 21, 2013 12:54 pm at 12:54 pm |
  20. MaryM

    Ha, so Christie turns his back on his friend Booker and endorces the loser rwnj repub nominee. But Christie was smart in calling for a special election so the rwnj republican nominee would not share the same election date as Gov Christie

    August 21, 2013 01:02 pm at 1:02 pm |
  21. somebody

    Sniffit

    "History matters."

    Not inside their bubble it doesn't. Heck, a poll just came out today that showed that 29% of LA Republicans blame Obama for the poor response to Katrina, which occurred 3 years before he even became president and while he was just a freshman Senator. That was less than the percentage, 28%, that blamed Bush. A full 44% didn't know whether to blame Bush or Obama. THE BUBBLE. Coming to a voting booth near you.

    -------------
    I don't know the percentages but many Republicans blame the economic crash of 2008 on Obama too. I have relatives that fall into that category. The economy crashed months before he was President but somehow Obama destroyed the economy. I'm amazed as to what passes for truth in The Bubble.

    August 21, 2013 01:04 pm at 1:04 pm |
  22. Sniffit

    "Heck, Bush even increased the size of government on the sly. By privatizing so many services, better known as government paid contractors, the size of government mushroomed under Bush.
    ----
    Huh? Goverment paid contractors are NOT government employees. They work for PRIVATE companies (non-government). Your own words " By privatizing so many services": That would be the key.."PRIVATIZING"."

    The point is that Bush avoided direct hiring and growing the number of federal employees, but nonetheless grossly increased gov't spending by funneling the cash out to more expensive private contractors...frequently in no-bid contracts... as a means of funneling our taxes into particular private hands, instead of just hiring employees directly who would be paid for the work. That's still "growing the size of gov't" any way you slice it, and particularly if you slice it with the Teatrolls' definition of "growing gov't," which apparently focuses solely on the amount of money being spent.

    August 21, 2013 01:05 pm at 1:05 pm |
  23. Steveo

    @Sniffit

    "Heck, Bush even increased the size of government on the sly. By privatizing so many services, better known as government paid contractors, the size of government mushroomed under Bush.
    --
    Huh? Goverment paid contractors are NOT government employees. They work for PRIVATE companies (non-government). Your own words " By privatizing so many services": That would be the key.."PRIVATIZING"."

    The point is that Bush avoided direct hiring and growing the number of federal employees, but nonetheless grossly increased gov't spending by funneling the cash out to more expensive private contractors...frequently in no-bid contracts... as a means of funneling our taxes into particular private hands, instead of just hiring employees directly who would be paid for the work. That's still "growing the size of gov't" any way you slice it, and particularly if you slice it with the Teatrolls' definition of "growing gov't," which apparently focuses solely on the amount of money being spent.
    -------------
    1. Growing government is not solely based on money spent, it is also based upon influence (regulation, laws)
    2. You explaination intrigues me. "funneling our taxes into particular private hands". Sounds like SOME foreign aid fits into that same category!
    3. I remember Obama railing against no-bid contracts. I also remember at least one non-bid contract that was let under his administration!

    August 21, 2013 01:20 pm at 1:20 pm |
  24. Rick McDaniel

    That's not news. It would be news if Obama DID NOT support Booker.

    August 21, 2013 01:23 pm at 1:23 pm |
  25. Rudy NYC

    Sniffit wrote:

    The point is that Bush avoided direct hiring and growing the number of federal employees, but nonetheless grossly increased gov't spending by funneling the cash out to more expensive private contractors...frequently in no-bid contracts... as a means of funneling our taxes into particular private hands, instead of just hiring employees directly who would be paid for the work. That's still "growing the size of gov't" any way you slice it, and particularly if you slice it with the Teatrolls' definition of "growing gov't," which apparently focuses solely on the amount of money being spent.
    ---------------
    Thank-you for that. Some people have a too narrow vision of the world, and how things are supposed to work, to actually begin to understand reality and how things really work.

    PS. I would've thrown this fish back in the water.

    August 21, 2013 01:23 pm at 1:23 pm |
1 2