Once Again, Lauren Boebert, YOU VOTED AGAINST THAT

SATURDAY UPDATE: The Durango Herald’s Skye Witley:

A newsletter distributed by U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert’s office this week touts “nine Boebert wins for Colorado,” but all nine items were included in a bill that the representative voted against earlier this month.

Boebert celebrated investments worth about $2.3 billion and measures such as preventing the use of federal money to pay for abortions, but several of the identified sums are distributed to localities on an annual basis or benefit national programs and initiatives…

The $1.4 trillion omnibus spending bill containing the “nine Boebert wins” was signed into law by President Joe Biden on March 15. Boebert voted against it six days earlier. The spokesperson said that the omnibus bill, which wraps budget measures together with policy changes, contained “more bad than good” for Republicans, so Boebert voted against it. [Pols emphasis]

See that last part? It’s the only part that matters.

This is a level of dishonesty so audacious you would scarcely believe it’s possible until someone is dumb enough to try it–which then of course they do. John Kerry helped talk himself out of the presidency in 2004 when he infamously claimed “I actually did vote for [Iraq war funds] before I voted against” them, and here we have Lauren Boebert practically repeating John Kerry verbatim.

If that doesn’t make even her most deep-fried supporters flinch, it’s hard to imagine what can.

—–

Here’s freshman GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert’s latest official letterhead email to constituents this week, celebrating “nine Boebert wins for Colorado signed into law.”

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R).

But if you’ve even casually followed Rep. Lauren Boebert’s voting record in Congress, and we’ve pointed out before, on multiple occasions, and the Colorado Sun reports again today in the Unaffiliated newsletter, there’s a basic problem with identifying any of these budgetary line-items for Western Colorado in the recent omnibus spending bill as “Boebert wins for Colorado.”

Boebert voted against the omnibus appropriations bill that included all of those measures. [Pols emphasis]

Boebert’s newsletter linked to a letter to her from ranking Rep. Kay Granger of Texas, the ranking Republican on the U.S. House Appropriation Committee, that contained a list of Boebert’s budget priorities…

Boebert’s list of nine items of budget priorities benefit her constituents, but some of them are national spending initiatives that are simply broad based, like the $1.8 billion allocation for community health centers in rural counties.

It’s becoming an increasingly common practice for Republicans to take credit with their constituents for funding priorities they opposed at every step of the process, and in Boebert’s case it’s about as brazen a lie as could possibly be told. First, Boebert refused to take part in the process of even requesting funding for specific projects. Then she voted against the legislation that contains those local funding priorities. Now she wants credit for the things she voted against on the ridiculous premise that since they’re still in the bill, Republican negotiators on the Appropriations Committee (Boebert is not) must have fought for them some way.

The Sun reports that Colorado’s other two Republican members of Congress have not joined Boebert this time in taking credit for legislation opposed at every step and then voted against. The knock on Boebert has always been that she was more interested in personal fame and fortune than representing her constituents. Rather than serving as a defense, Boebert is calling more attention to her failures by lying so brazenly that a five-year-old can understand the problem.

All we can say is, Boebert must be awfully confident that none of these real-world issues will matter.

21 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. gertie97 says:

    Unfortunately, with the average voting IQ of 3rd District Republicans, she’s probably correct.

  2. gertie97 says:

    Treat yourself to the letters to the editor of the GJ Sentinel. Boebert fans stoutly defend her while accusing the paper of going after her.

  3. Meiner49er says:

    Have you EVER met a Republican who wouldn't take a freebie as long as they didn't have to go on record of supporting it? Frigg'n welfare Kings, that's what they are.

  4. Moderatus says:

    Boebert went through channels to make sure her priorities were in the bill, but couldn't support the whole bill. This isn't as hard to understand as Colorado Pols pretends, and her voters won't be fooled.

    • kwtree says:

      Voters in a democratic republic elect their representatives to sponsor and vote for laws, not to “ go through channels” and then vote good laws down. This isn’t as hard to understand as Moderatus pretends, and voters are not fooled.

    • Duke Cox says:

      What a preposterous statement, Fluffy. 

      “Went through channels”?

      Would you care to describe that process? Lauren Boebert works on one thing only…the advancement of Lauren Boebert. She is FAR TOO BUSY on her self promotion campaign to actually WORK on legislation…which is her job…the job she is shirking in lieu of career building.

      Reppy le Pew Pew is a phony…through and through. It is all for show.

    • spaceman2021 says:

      You are a gutless hypocrite, just like your beloved Lauren.  She's literally taking credit for something she voted against.  There's no reasonable justification for that, Qaren

       

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      Oh right, I see now — it’s all so clear: those were HER priorities she went “through channels” to get included for her district in the bill she voted against????? . . .

      . . . Fuxsakes, Fluffy! But, what’s really hard to understand (by your now lamely attempting to perform your wife’s miserable job required bidding here) is how you’re ever going to manage to become any more pathetic???!!?!

    • unnamed says:

      Boebert went through channels to make sure her priorities were in the bill, but couldn't support the whole bill.

      If she voted against the bill, then she voted against her priorities in the bill.  This shouldn't be hard for ANYBODY to understand.  Even you.  Then again, you're defending the seditionist, BimBobert, and she wouldn't understand it either.  

    • Genghis says:

      Boebert went through channels to make sure her priorities were in the bill, but couldn't support the whole bill.

      lol

      From what part of your ass did you pull that nugget?

    • Pikes Piqued says:

      Of course her voters will be fooled; that's what they are–fools. 

    • All indications are she didn't even ask for earmarks for her district. Pretty indirect channels…

    • JohnInDenver says:

      Boebert had NOTHING to do with what was in the bill.  She did not make direct requests.  There is nothing to indicate she had any part in the negotiations on the budget creation.  There is little to indicate she has knowledge of "channels" of the legislative body or that even Republican channels are varied even minutely by her presence.

      • Duke Cox says:

        Agreed.

        Remember when elected representatives were expected to engage in substantive debate about complicated subjects affecting their constituents?

        Can anyone fit Lauren Boebert into that sentence?

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.