George Floyd has surpassed her record by miles and he has statues erected to honor him.

Are you suggesting we put up statues of Lauren?

We have built a monument statue to honor the memory and work of MLK just at the time we have decided not to listen to what he had to say to us. I find that ironic. But please note that MLK was also arrested; in fact, he was imprisoned nearly thirty times. But I would not call him a criminal. Would you? I have read Letter from a Birmingham Jail, and we need to listen to what he has to say despite his arrest record. I should hope you would agree. Dismissing his wisdom because of his incarcerations would be illogical--what logicians call a genetic fallacy. You certainly would not want to be guilty of that.

By itself, having a criminal record does not make one a hero or a villain. Jesus Christ was arrested and convicted, as were Paul and Peter. Then again, so were Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy. Then again, Eugene V. Debs ran for president in 1920 from a federal penitentiary and won about 3.4% of the vote. I would not call Boebert's criminal record insignificant. It is not something that commends her. She must explain her behavior to the voters in her district. But does her record disqualify the polices that she supports and dismiss her as a candidate? You need to talk about policies and legislation. That you, a man, find that a woman legislator does not measure up to your standards is hardly interesting--and somewhat offensive. In fact, your claim about her lack of formal education is not an argument against any policy position that she holds. Of course, lack of education does not commend her either. She may be a fool, but Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, and Frederick Jackson did not have formal educations. Franklin's education ended at ten, and Jackson rose from slavery. Of course, that's not an argument against education, but the way you describe her suggests that she has none. That is not true, as you well know. Nonetheless, she must make rational arguments in favor of the policies that she supports. Criticize those arguments and stop the ad hominem dismissals.

Now, I am not a supporter of Boebert. She is not a representative in my state. So I won't defend her criminal record, any more than I would defend the criminal records of other legislators in the House and the Senate (there are quite a few, incidentally) that share that distinction with her. Nor will I defend her lack of education. Moreover, her comment to Ilhan Omar was offensive and out of line. She has apologized, as she should. But Ilhan Omar's antisemitic comments were also offensive and out of line. She also apologized. It would be illogical to justify Boebert's bad behavior by citing Omar's bad behavior, but if we are going to be critical, then let's use the same measuring standard and use that standard in the same way. You don't like Boebert? I get that, and that's fine with me. But talk about the issues she supports with which you have problems. The fact that you find her character less than acceptable will matter only if you persuade enough voters that it does. She may not be the brightest bulb in the package, but that can happen in nation in which voters select their representatives. After all, AOC also got elected, and she cannot push a proposition against a logical operator without hurting herself. But I will leave her to the voters in her district.