Lauren Boebert Faces Her Constituents...Sort of

Lauren Boebert's "Teletownhall" last night was...unremarkable.

Which is in and of itself sort of remarkable, because we're living in interesting times, in that old Chinese curse sort of way. America is in chaos and crisis. The economy is tanking, and nothing feels safe — not our institutions, not our laws, not our Social Security or Medicare, and certainly not our civil liberties. If you're not either super-wealthy or incredibly ill-informed, you probably spend your waking hours wandering between states of being aghast, ashamed and terrified.

The fact that the March 26 Teletownhall was frankly pretty boring is exactly what Lauren Boebert's handlers wanted, of course, after the recent furor over her "pimp cane" comment and Kid Rock cab ride. The concept of a telephone town hall is based in two things: the appearance of constituent availability, and the absolute control of the environment. It's a format that allows for no booing, and no applause. No unchosen questions, absolutely no follow-ups, and none of the tomfoolery that has Republican politicians avoiding in-person appearances across the country. It's a feint of a public event. It might as well have been pre-recorded.

The Teletownhall went on for a little over an hour — really 45 minutes of questions, since the first fifteen were taken up with the staffer running the show constantly reminding everyone to sign up for email updates by pressing 7, and then Boebert rambling for a while without talking about anything that most Americans are really focused on. Nothing about the price of groceries going sky-high, or the stock markets tanking. Nothing about ICE starting to round up immigrants, or even the current news about one of the most egregious lapses in national security in modern history.

What did Boebert talk about in her opening statement? Well, for one, she expressed gratitude for the welcome her family has enjoyed in Windsor, and that she appreciates the "long, straight, flat highways." (No word on whether that means that she's come around on Biden's Infrastructure Bill — something that Trump never did find a time to address in his first term.) She invited anyone fighting "Federal Agencies" to contact her office, punctuating the Trump/Musk position that Federal Agencies are the root of the problem in America. And more about the usual: immigrant violence, America First, "people over predators" (she's talking about not giving a shit about wolves) and how she joined with Democrat Jason Crow in bipartisan spirit to support the Space National Guard. Okay, okay.

All the while, listeners were encouraged to press a button to ask a question. Some got through; others, like myself, did not. To be fair, I have no idea if this was a tech issue, a limited-time issue or something else entirely — I was going to ask about her "joke" at a House Natural Resources Committee the previous day: “I would caution my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to refrain from making jokes about the Gulf of America because next up may be the District of America that we are working on.” My question: How does that kind of comment help intelligent discourse? And does it mean all names are fair game with every administration, and is there some sort of Maps and Globes Industry behind it all? My guess is that question wouldn't have made it to air, anyway.

If there was cherry-picking involved in choosing which questions to pose to the 4th Congressional District representative, it wasn't clear at first. The opening question came from Christina in Loveland, asking about the overreach of DOGE and Elon Musk in protecting the data of the American people. Boebert's answer was representative of the way she addressed most of the questions: without much depth beyond reassurance and platitude. Boebert claimed that DOGE was being "careful and responsible" about the handling of sensitive data, and wasn't trying to steal it. She then said that Musk created PayPal (he didn't — he started a company that later merged with another to become PayPal, which Musk left right after), and so he's had a lot of access to sensitive data for years. And then comes the pivot: "If we really want to talk about bureaucrats accessing private information," Boebert said, "I would rather talk about how I fought against the Democrat bill that hired 87,000 armed IRS agents." It's an old claim about a mostly made-up controversy that has nothing to do with Elon Musk or DOGE, but it's where Boebert's brain went in that moment. She did manage to bring it back at the end by weirdly claiming that she doesn't support "un-elected bureaucrats or tech giants working with the government to suppress liberties," but that "it's exactly what Elon Musk and DOGE have helped expose!" You can hear the excitement in Boebert's voice when she makes this point — one she evidently believed was effective and insightful. (It was neither, but keep trying, Congresswoman.)

Such was the pattern for the fifteen questions that followed: meandering non-answers combined with unrelated folksy stories and a sort of empty thumbs-up/wink-wink "Hey, I hear ya, and I care" response that you would usually have to visit a sketchy used car dealership to encounter.

Cynthia in Littleton asked why Boebert voted for a budget resolution that calls for massive cuts to Medicaid and SNAP programs...particularly since Boebert herself at one time benefitted from those exact programs? Boebert responded by talking about zip codes in Littleton, and then conceded that while her family did benefit from those programs, they did so for too long, blaming "case workers who encouraged [Boebert's mother] to continue to use the program rather than bettering herself."

When Elaine in Windsor asked if Boebert has voiced opposition to the cutting of USAID, she responded that America should be strong, safe, and respected. "America First," she repeated, parroting misinformation from White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt listing the “crap” that the agency has paid for, including $1.5 million to advance DEI in Serbia’s workplaces, $70,000 for a production of a DEI musical in Ireland, $47,000 for a transgender opera in Colombia, and $32,000 for a transgender comic book in Peru (all overstated and misleading, and meant to be). But really, the core of Boebert's case was that taking care of others is nice, but only once all of America's wants are met first. You know, like Jesus taught: "Get yours, and then maybe take care of others."

Michael in Fort Morgan had what turned out to be the only boot-licking question of the evening: Will the House be able to move with the speed necessary to implement all of Trump's agenda? Michael says he works as a "faith leader" in the Hispanic and African American communities and also wants to invite outreach to "his constituency." Remember when Boebert said she was "tired of this separation of church and state junk"? 

And so it went for the rest of the hour: Boebert insisted that immigrants here illegally don't deserve due process, and that Denver should be denied federal funding if Mayor Mike Johnson sticks to being a sanctuary city; said that the Department of Education has failed our children, that NOAA was a "bloated" agency, and that clean air and water are important, but regulations aren't the answer — the energy industry is. (In other words, Lynn from Roxborough Park, let's not talk about how we protect the environment, let's talk about how we profit from it.)

Tariffs aren't scary, and lamb ranchers are really excited for them. Social Security isn't at risk. All taxation is theft. Trump has us in a great place economically. Privatizing the Post Office isn't a thing yet, but let me tell you a story about how I thought a couple of coyotes were dogs this one time, ha, ha, ha.

"We'll have many more of these," Boebert promised as she signed off. Of course she did. Because aside from wasting an hour of everyone's time pretending to be responsive to your electorate, there's no downside for the Colorado congresswoman.