Yeah, I didn’t word that well. I know it’s not re-election to the same seat, but it’s elected again to congress. What would it take to defeat her in the general election? Money?
She won against the last Democrat by less percentage than my current BAC in a solid red district. Her being the candidate is the best hope for Dems to take that seat.
She’s not campaigning for a seat in the same district. She moved to a district in Eastern Colorado because she knew she couldn’t get elected in the same district she ran in last time.
Honestly, I’d rather Bobo get the seat than a Republican who may actually be able to legislate their awful beliefs. Boebert is a clown, but in the grand scheme of things, she’s a pretty ineffective member of Congress. Only 3 of her introduced bills have passed the House.
She may generate sound clips for the right wing media machine, but they seem to be able to generate endless hate porn without much want or worry. I don’t think Lauren is their golden goose, laying gilded shits.
So on balance, Bobo taking up a deep R seat isn’t the worst outcome.
Plot twist: your name is Bender Bending Rodriguez and your current BAC is 70.00
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Michael Regan, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, gave Boebert a befuddled look when she asked him if the federal agency would continue enabling “rouge bureaucrats to enact unconstitutional regulations” even after the court’s decision that ended the 40-year run of the so-called Chevron standard.
Boebert fired back the same question and dug her heels in the sand, asking him which regulations the EPA would “repeal” to adhere to the court’s ruling.
However, the ruling does not prevent agencies from continuing to issue regulations – something Boebert’s question seemed to imply.
Regan testified to the House Oversight and Accountability Committee on Wednesday about the Supreme Court’s recent decision, saying he was “disappointed” and concerned about its impact.
He told committee members that the decision could hurt the EPA’s ability to interpret language and implement regulations about climate-related investments – something the Joe Biden administration has prioritized over the last four years.
Shortly after Boebert and Regan’s exchange, New York Representative Daniel Goldman pointedly spelled out the Supreme Court’s hearing for “clarify” purposes.
The original article contains 452 words, the summary contains 171 words. Saved 62%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Ooof the dreaded fact check
She just kept thinking about that BBC lmao
When are people going to understand it’s not about being right. She is teeing up soundbites for right wing media to clip and talk about “how brave she is for tackling the corrupt EPA.”
It does matter to highlight her idiocy to the parts of the country not in the cult.
The journalist does, probably. But this isn’t an opinion piece where they get to characterize what they assume her corrupt intentions to be. They’re reporting on the exchange, which all happened as described. They threw in his response, where he pointed out that she’s doing it for sound bites while praising and working with the EPA behind closed doors. What more can the journalist say? This isn’t a twitter post…but it is the independent. Which isn’t exactly much better. But it still needs to have the appearance of journalistic standards
So lmk when you plan to stand against Biden, he literally has crossed all his morals so clearly has none left, and/or how do you plan to defend him?
