March 25, 2024 03:05 PM UTC

Boebert Ripped To Shreds For Same Old False Credit Taking

•  
• by: Colorado Pols

It was a recurring theme during carpetbagging calamity Rep. Lauren Boebert’s term representing Colorado’s Third Congressional District that, after voting against legislation containing line items beneficial to her district, Boebert would take credit for these benefits with (at least at first) no attempt made to bridge the factual gap between her votes and press releases. Over time, Boebert developed with some air cover from House Republican leadership an alibi in which he had advocated in some internal way for these appropriations before voting against them. After Republicans retook narrow control of the U.S. House last year, Boebert suddenly found a moral path forward to support “earmarks” again–but not to actually vote yes on the bills containing them, otherwise known as the thing that actually counts.

Last week, and although Boebert has slipped in our order of coverage priority we didn’t want it to go unmentioned, Boebert tried once again to take credit for spending she voted against, and got immediately smacked down for it from the White House on down in full view of her new CO-04 would-be constituents:

The Democratic National Committee’s Stephanie Justice tore Boebert a metaphorical new one:

“Lauren Boebert has tried to take credit for the achievements President Biden and Democrats have delivered for Coloradans so many times you might wonder why she keeps voting against the bills since she supports the president’s agenda so much. But whether it’s Boebert or Donald Trump, MAGA Republicans refuse to put their extreme politics aside to actually fight for the working families President Biden and Democrats do every day. No matter how many times Boebert attempts to lie to her constituents, President Biden and Democrats are the only ones delivering real results for Colorado families and the American people.”

9NEWS’ Kyle Clark explains, as best he can since there’s really no explanation that makes sense:

Having decided that “earmarks” dispensed by fellow Republicans were not sinful, Boebert actually made the spending requests she once refused to partake in, only to vote against the bill that contained them. But instead of that small distinction making things better for Boebert, the blowback against this latest attempt to claim credit for programs she voted against is even more fierce than before.

One of the metrics commonly used on social media to gauge the popularity of one’s opinion is the ratio between “likes” and replies to a post, more replies indicating greater disagreement with the expressed opinion. And although Boebert routinely enjoys a thick padding of friendly interaction from her legions of social media followers, that wasn’t the case this time:

That is what losing a flamewar looks like. The UK Independent’s Eric Garcia reported today on the closest Boebert has formulated to an excuse:

“Sure did, I fought to get it in there, did I not,” she said. “If I wasn’t working on it, then it wouldn’t have been in there.” [Pols emphasis]

Unfortunately for Boebert, that’s simply not true. In Boebert’s own press release, you can see that most of the projects Boebert took credit for were also sponsored by both of Colorado’s Democratic U.S. Senators.

Although the appropriations that Boebert is taking credit for are benefiting her old congressional district, the lesson of Boebert taking credit for projects she votes against shouldn’t be lost on CO-04 voters, for whom Boebert’s ability to effectively represent their interests as an “incumbent” really is their only legitimate attraction. Boebert’s claim to have “influenced” the legislation she voted against was novel and audacious enough that it set critics back in speechlessness before her hypocritical re-embrace of “earmarks,” but this trick was only ever going to work once–twice at most with friendly press giving her the benefit of the doubt.

At this point, we honestly don’t know why Boebert bothers because the voters she needs to swing do not buy it, and her base voters don’t care enough to require the subterfuge. But it’s an insult to the intelligence we’ll be glad to see retired with Boebert.