Obama backs Booker
August 21st, 2013
10:51 AM ET
8 months 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. Lynda/Minnesota

    "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."

    Yes. And don't expect the residents of GOPerville to go outside their little fantasy land bubble and start accepting reality any time soon. Boring doesn't begin to describe their complaints; their tantrums; their foot stamping; their but ... but ... but...; their blah, blah, blah.

    August 21, 2013 01:25 pm at 1:25 pm |
  2. Fair is Fair

    "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."
    --------
    No fan of the Bush government expansion, but had he direct hired, the US taxpayer would have been on the hook for solid-gold health plans and grossly decadent pensions. All things considered, the private contractors were cheaper, not more expensive.

    August 21, 2013 01:28 pm at 1:28 pm |
  3. Gurgyl

    Good luck. Say one word–do not flicker.

    August 21, 2013 01:36 pm at 1:36 pm |
  4. Steveo

    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.
    ------
    Ah Rudy, Rudy, Rudy. I don't need to have the same vision as you. What says your vision is correct and mine is not?

    August 21, 2013 01:37 pm at 1:37 pm |
  5. Steveo

    @Fair is Fair

    "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."
    --–
    No fan of the Bush government expansion, but had he direct hired, the US taxpayer would have been on the hook for solid-gold health plans and grossly decadent pensions. All things considered, the private contractors were cheaper, not more expensive.
    --------
    Correct! Contractors get no government benefits!

    August 21, 2013 01:40 pm at 1:40 pm |
  6. Rudy NYC

    Fair is Fair wrote:

    No fan of the Bush government expansion, but had he direct hired, the US taxpayer would have been on the hook for solid-gold health plans and grossly decadent pensions. All things considered, the private contractors were cheaper, not more expensive.
    ------------------–
    You've got to be joking. Not when you reconsider and are forced to include the contractor's overhead. The employees are getting a pension payment from the contractor, and I give you one guess where the funding comes from. On top of that, you have the executives, their support staffs, and other positions that would be filled by government workers in supervisor and manager capacities. You know the hourly people and the salaried people. Don't forget about the salaried people.

    The big difference are revealed when you look at what these salaried folks get paid. The governemnt supervisors and managers get paid far less than their private industry counterparts. In addition, the private industry people earn bonus checks based upon PROFIT to the private company as a whole. There is no counterpart to PROFIT in the public sector.

    So, the idea that it is cheaper to privatize [that's what Bush called it, Donna] government services is ideological mythology. How many hospitals have you seen in your area that have been privatized, only to cost the public municipality that "sold" it cough up more cash to run it. In most cases, the now privatized institution needs a bailout, or goes belly up, in short order.

    August 21, 2013 01:45 pm at 1:45 pm |
  7. Don't be Cory SNOOKERED NJ!!!

    Cory Booker is just another far left yes man for Obama. Why wouldn't he support him? Hardly news.

    August 21, 2013 01:48 pm at 1:48 pm |
  8. Rudy NYC

    Steveo wrote:

    Correct! Contractors get no government benefits!
    ------------------------
    Correct. Contractors get beneits from their employers.....which is paid by guess who? Correct! The taxpayers.

    August 21, 2013 01:48 pm at 1:48 pm |
  9. Sniffit

    "All things considered, the private contractors were cheaper, not more expensive."

    MYTH. Actually, studies have shown that the federal employees are cheaper. One by the Project on Government Oversight reported that the gov't pays private contractors an average of 1.83 times the amount it pays direct employees for the same work (and in 12 out of 35...about 1/3...of the professions they investigated it was over DOUBLE). The numbers don't lie.

    What you're talking about is a myth based on drawing a strained conclusion solely from the idea that federal employees are paid about 5% more than employees in the private sector IN GENERAL. That, however, is merely a very generalized analysis, and does not look directly and SPECIFICALLY at the actual situation in terms of private contractors receiving gov't contracts, which the POGO study did. The gov't is blowing billions on this fairy tale that it's cheaper to pay private contractors, who have to support their own organizational infrastructures, overheads, other operating expenses and massive salaries for executives in comparison to similarly positioned people in the federal gov't...not to mention any shareholders who are going to want some of that sweet sweet gov't green to pass through the private corporation into their hands as dividends or other payouts.

    August 21, 2013 01:54 pm at 1:54 pm |
  10. Sniffit

    "Correct! Contractors get no government benefits!"

    Too bad the studies show they're still more expensive. It might behoove you to do some research instead of just relying on folksy-wisdom bumper-sticker analyses to drive your conclusions.

    August 21, 2013 01:56 pm at 1:56 pm |
  11. Fair is Fair

    Sniffit

    "All things considered, the private contractors were cheaper, not more expensive."

    MYTH. Actually, studies have shown that the federal employees are cheaper. One by the Project on Government Oversight reported that the gov't pays private contractors an average of 1.83 times the amount it pays direct employees for the same work (and in 12 out of 35...about 1/3...of the professions they investigated it was over DOUBLE). The numbers don't lie.
    --------–
    Well, there you go. Clearly the answer, therefore, is to maximize efficiency by making EVERYONE a government employee and fulfill your Lenin-esque wet dream. Want an extra roll of toilet paper, comrade? Work a little overtime.

    August 21, 2013 02:02 pm at 2:02 pm |
  12. just saying

    Sniffit
    "Correct! Contractors get no government benefits!"
    Too bad the studies show they're still more expensive. It might behoove you to do some research instead of just relying on folksy-wisdom bumper-sticker analyses to drive your conclusions.
    -–

    what studies? union studies that say it is far cheaper to hire government employees for decades which you can fire or get rid of and then have to pay retirement and healthcare for? please post referneces to your non-existant "studies".

    **crickets**

    August 21, 2013 02:04 pm at 2:04 pm |
  13. Rudy NYC

    "Nice tries, guys, but we got you all."

    August 21, 2013 02:06 pm at 2:06 pm |
  14. Steveo

    @Sniffit

    "Correct! Contractors get no government benefits!"

    Too bad the studies show they're still more expensive. It might behoove you to do some research instead of just relying on folksy-wisdom bumper-sticker analyses to drive your conclusions.
    -----
    You have such a wonderful way with words!

    August 21, 2013 02:06 pm at 2:06 pm |
  15. Sniffit

    "Well, there you go. Clearly the answer, therefore, is to maximize efficiency by making EVERYONE a government employee and fulfill your Lenin-esque wet dream. Want an extra roll of toilet paper, comrade? Work a little overtime."

    Right, because THAT is "logical" extension of what I was arguing. Yawn. You're better off just running and hiding instead of making ridiculous comments like that when you've been proven wrong.

    August 21, 2013 02:10 pm at 2:10 pm |
1 2