Lauren Boebert is “present” but that’s about all

l

A couple of centuries ago, an extraordinary group of 56 men on the eastern seaboard of our continent declared the independence of their lands. At the close of their Declaration of Independence, they further declared, “We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

I think Lauren Boebert would have voted “present.”

The Founders weren’t just being melodramatic. Had they lost the Revolutionary War, they’d have met their end at the end of a rope. They took that risk to found this amazing democratic republic, one that Abraham Lincoln later noted was “conceived in liberty.” He might have added “with undaunted courage and against all odds.” 

The spectacle last week in the House of Representatives – the people’s house – was beautiful. More than in recent memory, politicians in the exercise of their liberty disagreed, argued, compromised, and cajoled. It reminded me of the British House of Commons. It was raw and occasionally splendid oratory in combination with genuine emotions and the grease of backroom dealing. It was how a democratic republic is supposed to work.

The Democrats in the House and their Democrat cheerleaders in the media mocked these Republicans for their messy debate while congratulating themselves on their own “unity.” As if kneeling in unison to the whims and diktats of Nancy Pelosi was what the Founders intended for their new Republic.

I personally thought the Republican dissenters accomplished some good in their reforms. And they delivered the message that the new Speaker is not the boss of the House; he’s the servant of the House – and the people. The compromise with which the spectacle ended was at about the right time. It was after the dissenters had achieved nearly all their goals and just (barely) before they damaged the incoming Speaker beyond repair.

The Speaker ultimately won, the dissenters won, the Republicans won, and the nation won.

But Lauren Boebert lost. She was one of the 20 or so dissenters. That alone was fine. She was very outspoken. That, too, was fine. But she also personalized her dissent and attacked the incoming Speaker in ways that were not constructive. For the record, I endorsed her in her campaigns and wrote complimentary pieces on her.

Worst of all, at crunch time, she neither voted for, nor against, the Speaker or anyone else. I could have respected any vote if only she had voted. But she instead tried to have it both ways; she voted “present” which counts as no vote at all.

She evidently wanted to be able to say when convenient at some times “I didn’t vote for him” and to be able to say when convenient at other times “I didn’t vote against him.” I’m guessing that in the next election cycle, the people will see this for what it is.

Boebert brandishes an AR-15, talks tough, personalizes disagreement, insisted once on taking a handgun into the House, and loves the limelight. But if she had been in Philadelphia 247 years ago when things got tough, her name would not have been among the 56 names on that Declaration.

She instead would have voted “present.”

WordPress tells me I have nearly a million readers now. Join them with a free subscription HERE or just send an email to theAspenbeat@gmail.com

Watch for my upcoming book “High Attitude – the liberal takeover of Aspen.”

30 thoughts on “Lauren Boebert is “present” but that’s about all

  1. True but not surprising. Lauren often acts like a rebellious adolescent during Congressional proceedings. She almost lost in 2022 to a very unattractive Democrat. Let’s hope voters in district dispose of her next time and dispose of her in the primary election. .

  2. She actually understands business, freedom, and poverty. She is a self-made woman. None of us is perfect, but she is standing against the government. Government at the federal level does not know what I need. I can figure out how to live my life if given the chance.

  3. Pingback: Lauren Boebert’s name wouldn’t have been among the 56 on the Declaration of Independence. She instead would have voted “present”-Glenn Beaton, Aspen Beat | Impeach Obama, McCain and Boehner Today

  4. If you expect any human being to be always consistent and perfect then you’re on a fool’s errand. She had her reasons for voting present and if that was her choice then it’s still a free country. The bit about the Declaration was beyond the pale and remember Reagan’s 11th commandment.

  5. Five other “terrorists” in Dan Crenshaw’s opinion also voted “present” in a move calculated to give McCarthy a majority while still expressing their displeasure with Republican leadership (as well as giving the finger to the likes of Crenshaw). In essence it was a left-handed vote for the Speaker and the majority, so I don’t regard it as “no vote at all.” But I do agree that the entire four-day spectacle was “beautiful.” Archimedes boasted that with a sufficient fulcrum he could move the world; granted, the House is not the entire political world, or Republican Party, but we saw what a small lever can do in a beautifully designed republic.

  6. How many people watched the final day of the proceedings in real time. I did, although admittedly I bounced around between the online C-Span feed and other web pages.

    After the 14th ballot the Democrats pulled off the stunt of sabotaging the motion to adjourn to Monday morning. At that point, I think the anti-McCarthy Republicans decided it was time to stick it to the Democrats. By voting present, they allowed the 98 percent of their caucus which supported McCarthy to prevail.

    Most absurd were the people who were running around saying that Hakeem Jeffries was “leading” in the speaker vote until the last two ballots. What they should be doing is questioning how the leadership always gets 100 percent of the Democratic caucus to vote the same way. Makes you wonder what kind of methods they are using. I suspect that in some cases they show potentially recalcitrant members to good they have on them and tell them that they’d better stay in line.

    Look what happened to Al Franken in the Senate due to his slight maverick tendencies. They showed pictures of him doing what comedians do and forced him to resign. Doesn’t anybody realize it’s all a puppet show? The puppets are all in the drawer already – named-customed- scripted – and ready to be popped out for the occasion.

  7. Although I am fully supportive of republican efforts to return The House to its pre-Pelosi rules of procedure as well as the announced intention to investigate and publicize all the democrat efforts to establish a tyranny in place of our representative republic, I am refraining from excessive exuberance at this stage of the matter. People must remember that democrats control the Senate as well as the Executive Branch, including most especially the unelected administrative juggernaut that runs things on a day-to-day basis regardless of the party in power. Therefore, everything we now see in regard to “repealing” any previous legislation is simply political theater. Of course, I understand that it will be useful in publicizing democrat and RINO opposition, and in conjunction with the dirty laundry exposed by investigatory committees may have some influence in persuading the persuadable to vote against the democrat candidate in the next couple of electoral rounds. However, when the democrat cheat machine gets rolling and the electoral efforts are thwarted, it remains to be seen what effect the republican efforts will have as a practical matter.

  8. I applaud the Freedom Caucus effort to push for House rules which restore some kind of order and common sense to legislating. Well done. The final four “present” votes smell of personal animosity, however.

    • Language geek that I am, I’ll point out that “anima” is the Latin word for soul, or spirit, and that “animosity” signals a spiritual clash among the “animals” that we are. Mr. Kokish, in the first comment above, seems to think that anything other than dispassionate rationality is “adolescent,” a case of arrested development. I disagree and am happy to have adolescents such as Boebert around, “animating” our political discourse. As Wordsworth famously noted, the Child is the father of the Man.

  9. Au contraire, my friend. Lauren played a brilliant political game and she and the other Freedom Caucus members won an outstanding victory for We The People.

    Voting present sends a strong signal that should McCarthy play tricks, the rules now allow a recall of the Speaker with just one member calling for the vote. Lauren, like the 2nd Amendment, is saying: “And I mean it.”

  10. The problem I have with the spectacle last week was the fact it was not done earlier behind closed doors so the chaos didn’t make the Republicans look weak and foolish.

  11. I’ll admit … I was pretty dubious and peeved when the recalcitrant members of the Freedom Caucus were holding back on McCarthy during the first few votes.

    But, as the voting wore on I think their message began breaking through, so much so that at one point there was some twenty Republicans voting for another Speaker candidate.

    In retrospect, I’m glad that there was a fight on this and that the new Speakership wasn’t just another swampy and pre-ordained coronation.

    These recalcitrant Freedom Caucus members managed to wring out some great concessions … it was kinda like watching a tax collector squeeze blood from a stone.

    And I get that Lauren Boebert and her colleague Matt Gaetz seemed to be doing much of this fight-back based on personal issues and vendettas against McCarthy.

    I’m out here in SoCal … and amongst our small band of conservatives Kevin McCarthy is viewed with a jaundiced eye. However, I do think he could end up becoming a better Speaker than either of the last few GOP Speakers, Hastert, Boehner, and Ryan.

    If he does indeed wind up as a better Speaker I think a lot of it will be due to these recalcitrant Freedom Caucus members.

    So … maybe Lauren Boebert did the right thing, albeit for the wrong reason. At this point, and where our country is right now, I’ll take it.

    Any yeah … while Lauren, and perhaps her Shooters posse, might not achieve the same intellectual status and gravitas of the Founding Fathers, they sure are easier on the eyes!

  12. So now Karl Rove is in the WSJ saying the Freedom Caucus acted “selfishly and undemocratically.” No. Let’s have more, not fewer, political battles based on governing principles, rather than Pelosi-style dictatorship. Along with our host here, it’s only the petulant no-vote at the end I disagree with.

  13. Glenn, she voted Present, as did Matt Gaetz and others to reduce the threshold of votes need to get McCarthy elected. This allows all of them to claim they never voted for him, and also is a great conversational opening to being able to explain the fantastic concessions they were rewarded with. We are already seeing committee assignments for conservatives, and conservative action from Speaker McCarthy. The proof will be in 2024, if the Seante goes Republican and the President is a Republican. Will all the bills passed in the House, and then dying . . . . pass both bodies and get signed by the President?

    I am encouraged.

    • I”m encouraged, too, about 2024.

      But back to Boebert. You’re saying she ultimately wanted him to get elected, but at the same time “claim they never voted for him”? That’s either dishonest or just chickenshit.

      • Not exactly. Once the Freedom Caucus got everything out of McCarthy that we needed, just enough members voted present to allow Mccarthy to be elected. I think she, and Gaetz (I am in Florida) and you and I, have a deep distrust for McCarthy, and hopefully the concessions will be enough to keep him honest. Antidotally, so for it seems to be . . .

        Again, though, the proofs will be in 2024. They can pass bills and budget reductions out all day long for the next two years, but with a hostile Senate and President there will be not much accomplished but some negotiating and vetoes. Will they do the same bills and budget issues with a more favorable landscape? Obamacare comes to mind.

        Also, thank you for responding to my post!

  14. Boebert is a GOP antidote to AOC! If we let her, she can carry a conservative message far and wide, and isn’t afraid to say what is needed in front of the cameras. We need to give her more support, especially in the local newspapers! If not, you will see her opponent, with far more campaign financing, representing you after the next election. Within a few short years, you won’t want to live here anymore unless you are one of the Leftist Elites embracing the WOKE ideology percolating throughout the current culture. Boebert won’t back down, and by all we hold sacred, that is what is needed NOW!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s