Lagering is a process that is just too expensive, time-consuming, space-consuming, and labor-intensive for most brewpubs (and many of the smaller craft breweries) to invest in, especially since most of their money is made in the more complex ales. Ales are much easier to make, less demanding of hardware, storage space, and effort, and carry a lot more flavor (intentional and unintentional) than the kinds of lagers most small brewers could manage.
This isn't a knock on lagers; a well made lager can be every bit as complex as ale, but in ways that are different, more subtle, and (most important of all) harder to achieve. I may have nothing but disdain for the mainstream beers they produce, but the technical prowess of the BMCs isn't to be sneered at - they are making the very hardest of beers to get right, and do so with astounding quality control. That Budweiser can make the exact same beer, year after year, in multiple plants around the world, and never have a hint of fermentation characteristics aside for the faint apple ester they are so proud of, is an impressive feat, no matter what we actually think of the finished product. As Bill Mares said, they could make any beer in the world if they wanted to; they just choose to make one that is tasteless and inoffensive because that is all the overwhelming majority of consumers want. Just as Intel throws the best IC designers in the world at propping up one of the worst imaginable CPU architectures and make it succeed, so to do the BMCs throw many of the best brewers in the world into making the blandest lagers on Earth and then market them like crazy.
As for why they called it a Pilsner instead of Kolsch, it's probably due to name recognition; nearly everyone has heard of Pilsner (even if most only have a vague idea of what the name means) thanks to the equally deceptive advertising of Anheuser-Busch, but hardly anyone who isn't a brewer themselves has ever heard of Kolsch.
