Democrat Cory Booker says he will miss his ‘most unexpected friend’ in the Senate 16%

By Adisa Hargett-Robinson3%

7/12/2026, 10:00:28 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Self-Serving Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Halo Effect, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 18.7% saturation with 85 hits. Analysis detected 684 faulty-reasoning hits from 454 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 31.8% and a BS Rank of 16% (18,495 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 84.50% of the article peer group.

Sen. 
Cory Booker (D-NJ) reflected on his unlikely friendship with the late Sen. 
Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and on Graham’s role in advancing criminal justice reform following his death. 
In a social media video , Booker recalled approaching Graham about working together on criminal justice reform, only to be told that Graham was facing a difficult primary fight and could not publicly engage at the time. 
I am stunned by Senator Graham's passing, and thinking back this morning about some of the work we did together. 
My prayers are with his family and all who cherished him. 
Rest in Peace. pic.twitter.com/cPUXDQxk1B 
 Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) July 12, 2026 
“I’m in a primary right now, and I’m running against a guy who is bat**** crazy. 
I can’t even so much as talk to you right now,” Booker recalled Graham telling him. 
“Come back to me after my primary.” 
Booker said he returned after the primary, and Graham followed through, working alongside Booker, Sen. 
Dick Durbin ( D-IL), and other lawmakers to help pass what became the First Step Act. 
Signed into law in 2018 by President Donald Trump , the First Step Act was a bipartisan criminal justice reform package aimed at reducing certain federal prison sentences, expanding rehabilitation programs, and providing incentives for incarcerated individuals to participate in programs designed to reduce recidivism. 
Booker said one of his most memorable moments during negotiations came when he pushed for a provision addressing the use of solitary confinement for children. 
After a disagreement with a White House official, Booker recalled that the official threatened to call Graham to settle the dispute. 
According to Booker, Graham quickly sided with the effort to include the provision. 
“Are you kidding me? 
We need Cory Booker to get this bill done. 
We can’t do it without him. 
Give him what he wants,” Booker recalled Graham saying. 
The provision ultimately became part of the legislation, Booker said. 
Booker also recalled a description from one White House negotiator who compared Graham’s unpredictable negotiating style to an “unguided missile”  someone whose position could be difficult to predict but who could accomplish major goals when focused on a cause. 
“He could get things done that other people couldn’t,” Booker said. 
DEMOCRATS SEE OPENING AFTER GRAHAM’S DEATH SHAKES UP SOUTH CAROLINA SENATE RACE 
Booker described Graham as “perhaps my most unexpected friend in the Senate,” saying he would miss the South Carolina senator and praying that Graham was reunited with his longtime friend, the late Sen. 
John McCain. 
“I will miss my perhaps most unexpected friend in the Senate, and someone with whom I got some good things done,” Booker said. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 5.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.9%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 2.3%Washington Examiner: 3.2%Availability Heuristic9.9%This article: 11.5%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 2.0%Washington Examiner: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic11.5%This article: 2.2%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 0.8%Hindsight Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.8%Washington Examiner: 8.6%Framing Effect5.7%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 1.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 1.1%Washington Examiner: 9.3%Negativity Bias7.9%This article: 15.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 2.1%Washington Examiner: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias15.0%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 2.9%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.4%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias2.9%This article: 7.3%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 1.0%Washington Examiner: 2.2%In-Group Bias7.3%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 13.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 4.6%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Halo Effect13.0%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.6%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.4%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Recency Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 1.5%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 4.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 1.3%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 3.0%False Dilemma1.3%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.4%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 8.9%Hasty Generalization2.4%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 15.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 2.1%Washington Examiner: 6.0%Appeal to Emotion15.0%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 1.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 18.7%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 2.7%Washington Examiner: 2.2%Anecdotal18.7%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.8%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 1.3%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.8%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.5%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 1.8%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Unattributed Quote3.5%This article: 4.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.6%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection4.0%This article: 8.1%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 1.2%Washington Examiner: 11.5%Biased Writer Voice8.1%This article: 3.5%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 3.5%Indoctrination3.5%This article: 7.3%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 1.9%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias7.3%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 4.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adisa Hargett-Robinson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

454 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers77%attributed speech103writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageCory Booker • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageCory Booker • 37 words • 100.0% coverageCory Booker • 20 words • 0.0% coverageCory Booker • 11 words • 0.0% coverageCory Booker • 4 words • 0.0% coverageCory Booker • 7 words • 0.0% coverageLindsey Graham • 16 words • 100.0% coverageCory Booker • 16 words • 100.0% coverageLindsey Graham • 7 words • 0.0% coverageCory Booker • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverageCory Booker • 25 words • 0.0% coverageCory Booker • 21 words • 0.0% coverageCory Booker • 13 words • 0.0% coverageLindsey Graham • 4 words • 100.0% coverageLindsey Graham • 9 words • 0.0% coverageLindsey Graham • 6 words • 0.0% coverageCory Booker • 9 words • 0.0% coverageCory Booker • 10 words • 0.0% coverageCory Booker • 40 words • 0.0% coverageCory Booker • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageCory Booker • 33 words • 100.0% coverageCory Booker • 2 words • 0.0% coverageCory Booker • 23 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Cory Booker

83%flagged-word coverage
309 attributed words88% of attributed speech83% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Quote-first Misdirection-13.6 ptsWriter: 13.6%Cory Booker: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice+12.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Cory Booker: 12.0%12.0%Politically Left Leaning B+10.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Cory Booker: 10.7%10.7%Unattributed Quote+5.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Cory Booker: 5.2%5.2%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.