#Rep. Don Bacon

[youll-ruin-the-flowers]

How do I explain to my dumbass senators/representatives that I do not give a shit about "illegal" immigrants finding a way to vote without the "correct" documentation, but I do care about voting being made much much harder for people who are already deemed citizens. Like my guy. In trying to "own" the "illegals" you are hurting your constituents. Not that you fucking care, but how can you hide being "protecting citizens" when you're supporting shit that hurts them in an attempt at hurting the "enemy."

[saywhat-politics]

Multiple Republican lawmakers are voicing concerns about backing a high-profile measure later this week to codify Elon Musk’s DOGE cuts – raising questions about whether it can pass the House at all.

Two Republicans – Reps. Mark Amodei of Nevada and Nicole Malliotakis of New York – separately told CNN they have concerns with the White House’s push to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

“Still mulling,” Amodei said when asked if he would support the package of cuts. “The impact on local PBS stations appears to be significant.”

Other Republicans have heartburn about how it could cut the Bush-era program, PEPFAR, devoted to fighting HIV and AIDS globally.

“If it cuts PEPFAR like they’re saying it is, that’s not good,” GOP Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska told CNN last week.

House GOP leaders plan to put the package of cuts, totaling $9.4 billion, on the floor as soon as Thursday, according to two people familiar with the plans.

But Speaker Mike Johnson will need near unanimity in his conference for the package to pass the House, where he can only lose three votes.

Johnson said on Monday that he’s “working on” getting enough votes for the Department of Government Efficiency spending cuts package he hopes to bring to the floor this week.

“The only concern I heard initially was some wanted a little more specificity and detail on what was in the package,” Johnson continued.

Asked how he would persuade members that wanted more specificity in the package, Johnson replied, “I’m gathering up all their questions and we’ll try to get them all answered. I mean, that’s what we do in every piece of legislation.”

If it can survive the House, it will face major obstacles in the Senate. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine told CNN on Monday that she has major misgivings about the global health cuts, including PEPFAR.

[contemplatingoutlander]

If he loses the 2024 presidential election, former President Donald Trump will likely lobby House Republicans to refuse to certify the results. This was not as much of a problem in 2020 when Democrats held the majority of seats, but with Republicans now holding a narrow majority, it could become a legitimate issue. However, Politico reports that a bipartisan group of House lawmakers have banded together to jointly pledge to certify the results of the 2024 presidential election, and the group so far includes six House Republicans. This means that, should these six Republicans keep their pledge to certify a win for Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump's allies would be unable to block the certification of the election given the current numbers in the House of Representatives. The bipartisan group, which was organized by centrist Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Don Bacon (R-NE), also includes Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Mike Lawler (R-NY), Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-OR), Nick LaLota (R-NY) and Anthony D’Esposito (R-NY). Bacon said that the group's pledge was a reflection of traditional American values. “In America we respect election results especially once the courts and appeals work through the process,” he said. “We fight hard to win during campaigns and then respect the results when the votes are counted.”

Thank goodness for a handful of Republicans in the House who actually take their oath to support the Constitution seriously.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Emily Singer at Daily Kos:

As Americans grow more fearful that President Donald Trump's nonsensical tariffs will lead to needless economic hardship, House Republicans are not trying to fend off that economic doom—instead, they’re passing a bill to formally rename the Gulf of Mexico. The House passed Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's "Gulf of America Act" on Thursday by a vote of 211-206, with every Democrat and just one Republican voting against it.  The bill "renames the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America and directs federal agencies to update their documents and maps to incorporate the new name"—as if it matters to most voters what that body of water is called. Greene, who stood alongside an image of the Gulf of Mexico with a giant "Gulf of America" text over it, said on the House floor that she introduced the bill because "[t]he American people deserve pride in their country, and they deserve pride in the waters we own." In the real world, voters don't give a shit what the Gulf of Mexico is called. A February poll from Marquette University Law School found that 71% of Americans opposed renaming the Gulf of Mexico, as Trump said he wants to do. Instead, voters desperately want Trump to lower inflation—the most important issue to voters, according to a new YouGov poll—and disapprove of Trump’s tariff plan, which is expected to do the opposite.

Where’s your priorities?! The GOP House majority voted almost party line on codifying Donald Trump’s masturbatory fantasies about renaming the Gulf of Mexico 211-206, with one Republican (Don Bacon) voting against.

See Also:

The Guardian: US House approves ‘dumb’ legislation renaming Gulf of Mexico ‘Gulf of America’

[dertaglichedan]

House Passes Trump’s $9.4 B DOGE Cuts, 214–212, Axing USAID, NPR, PBS Funds

The U.S. House of Representatives on 12 June narrowly approved President Donald Trump’s first rescissions package, a cornerstone of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) agenda once overseen by Elon Musk. The measure, passed 214–212, would cancel $9.4 billion in previously appropriated spending and now moves to the Senate, where only a simple majority is required for enactment.

Under the bill, about $8.3 billion would be withdrawn from U.S. Agency for International Development programs, while roughly $1.1 billion earmarked for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting—which funds NPR and PBS—would be clawed back over the next two fiscal years. Supporters said the cuts represent an initial effort to curb wasteful spending; opponents warned they would undermine global health initiatives and eliminate free educational and emergency‐alert services provided by public media.

The final tally came after intense floor drama. Four Republicans—Reps. Mark Amodei, Brian Fitzpatrick, Nicole Malliotakis and Mike Turner—joined all Democrats in opposition, while Reps. Don Bacon and Nick LaLota switched their votes to ‘yes’ in the closing minutes, delivering the majority. A shouting match broke out on the floor during the roll call, underscoring divisions within the GOP conference.

The vote follows a 213–207 procedural victory the previous day and marks Congress’s first use of the rescission process in some 30 years. Senate leaders have not yet scheduled consideration of the bill, leaving the future of the proposed DOGE cuts—and federal support for public broadcasting and certain foreign aid programs—uncertain.

[beardedmrbean]

EXCLUSIVE: Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts is leading the charge with Democrat Sen. John Fetterman to codify oversight on foreign countries buying American farmland.

The bipartisan Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure (AFIDA) Improvements Act seeks to implement recommendations published by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in January 2024, which found the AFIDA was ill-equipped to combat foreign ownership of American agricultural land. 

"Communist China is our greatest geopolitical threat," Ricketts told Fox News Digital in an exclusive interview, adding, "This is a way for us to improve the disclosure that's going on with regard to the purchase of this agricultural land, so we can take other action if necessary to make sure we're not giving Communist China the opportunity to buy agricultural land."

The bill's proposal comes as two Chinese nationals – a University of Michigan post-doctoral research fellow, Yunqing Jian, and Huazhong University of Science and Technology student Chengxuan Han – were held in federal custody after they were accused of smuggling biological materials into the United States.

RICKETTS, FETTERMAN TEAM UP FOR CRACKDOWN ON CHINA'S ATTEMPTS TO PURCHASE US FARMLAND

The suspects have been charged with "smuggling a fungus that has been described as a "potential agroterrorism weapon" into the heartland of America, where they apparently intended to use a University of Michigan laboratory to further their scheme," interm U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan Jerome Gorgon said in a statement. 

The fungus causes a "head blight," described as a disease of wheat, maize, rice and barley, and is responsible for billions of dollars of economic losses throughout the world each year, according to the Department of Justice. If ingested by humans, the substance can cause vomiting, liver damage and "reproductive defects in humans and livestock." 

Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told Fox News Digital that the Trump administration is focused on "keeping our homeland secure" through enhanced border screenings. 

"Protecting America’s food supply and national security remains a top priority. Last week’s smuggling attempt by Chinese nationals of Fusarium graminearum, a dangerous crop-destroying fungus, posing a significant bioterrorism threat, only highlights this imperative to combat this threat," McLaughlin said. 

"That could potentially be very damaging to agriculture," Ricketts told Fox News Digital. "We also know that Chinese nationals have been trying to steal our biotechnology with regard to agriculture. They've also been crashing gates of bases. Supposed Chinese tourists have been flying drones around bases. Of course, the Chinese flew a surveillance balloon over our country when the Biden administration just let that happen."

Ricketts said China has been aggressively buying American agriculture, "which is why we need to have a heightened sense of vigilance around protecting our homeland."

Foreign investors own over 40 million acres of agricultural land in the United States, and between 2010 and 2021, Chinese ownership of American agricultural land increased from 13,720 acres to 383,935 acres, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 

"It's not just about the number of acres that they own, but the fact that they own it around Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota or Fort Liberty in North Carolina. They're buying it around sensitive military installations," Ricketts said. 

The bill, also co-sponsored by Sens. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, John Cornyn of Texas, Roger Wicker of Mississippi and Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, requires AFIDA reporting for foreign persons holding more than 1% interest in American agricultural land.

The AFIDA Improvements Act aims to increase information-sharing between the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States and the USDA. It also requires updates to the AFIDA's handbook and establishes a deadline for USDA to set up an online AFIDA system. 

Based on the GAO's recommendations, the bill seeks to update the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of 1978 to better equip the USDA to combat foreign adversaries’ ownership of American agricultural land. 

"We are at the most dangerous point in our history right now since World War II," Ricketts said. "We have to be investing in our military. We have to be supporting our friends around the world that are pushing back on these dictators. Communist China is one of them."

Additionally, the bill comes as conflict in the Middle East reaches a boiling point between Iran and Israel, reigniting concerns about national security. Israel successfully coordinated attacks against Iran from inside the country, and Ricketts pointed to Ukraine's success in targeting a Russian air base. 

"What Ukraine was able to do against Russia with their operation that destroyed some of their strategic bombers, and they placed trucks with drones close to an air base and had those drones attack their squadrons. We could be vulnerable to the same thing if China did that here. They've owned farmland close enough to our air bases to be able to launch a drone strike. That should be very concerning to us," Ricketts said. 

Ricketts added that American farmland should not be a "tool that our adversaries, like Communist China, can use to attack us from inside our own country."

There has been little movement on the bill since it was just recently introduced. That is largely because Senate Republicans are narrowly focused on advancing Trump's "big, beautiful bill" ahead of a self-imposed July 4 deadline.

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from Inside Climate News:

A growing number of House Republicans are asking federal budget planners to protect Biden-era tax incentives for clean and renewable energy projects from repeal by Congress and freezes by the Trump administration. 

In a letter on Sunday, 21 Republican members of the House warned of economic disruptions and loss of investments if the tax credits from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act were slashed. 

The letter came as the House Ways and Means Committee is expected to begin meeting behind closed doors to decide precisely which budget cuts to make to pay for Trump’s big tax cut bill, a measure expected to be passed through what is known as a budget reconciliation process. It is the same process that was used to pass the IRA, and requires only a simple majority in the Senate for passage. At the same time, Congress is racing to pass a bill to cover the current fiscal year and avoid a government shutdown before a March 14 deadline. 

“Both our constituencies and the energy industry alike remain concerned about disruptive changes to our nation’s energy tax structure,” the Republican lawmakers wrote. 

Incentives offered under the IRA include tax discounts for a wide range of new energy fields, from electric vehicles and ethanol fuels to wind and solar farms, hydrogen plants and carbon capture projects. Many of the incentives were enacted for a 10-year period, the Republicans’ letter said, allowing developers to incorporate them into plans for major projects, “all of which would be jeopardized by premature credit phase outs or additional restrictive mechanisms.”

But not every Republican signatory supports every energy tax credit offered under the IRA. Many remain opposed to programs supporting electric vehicles in particular. 

When reached earlier this year about whether he continued to support preservation of at least some of the energy tax incentives in the IRA, Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) made clear that he particularly was concerned about the provisions that benefited his state’s farm economy.  

Nebraska is second only to neighboring Iowa in ethanol production capacity, and it also is one of the nation’s leading wind energy states, with many wind developments benefiting farmers who have signed agreements to have turbines on their land. The IRA extended or increased certain tax credits for wind projects and ethanol production, and also provided new opportunities for the ethanol industry to generate tax savings through installation of carbon capture, biogas or energy efficiency upgrades. 

“The answer is yes, we should preserve tax credits for biofuels and for energy generation,” Bacon said in an email. “Folks who have invested in IRA projects should be grandfathered in regardless.”

But he said he did not support continuation of the IRA’s incentives for electric vehicles.

“There’s no support for the EV mandates and tax credits,” he wrote. “Hybrids are the way to go. EVs really aren’t popular in the Midwest.”

On Monday, the conservative environmental group Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions issued a statement in support of the Republican lawmakers who are backing the IRA credits. 

[klbmsw]

This has been under-reported in my opinion. When Congress passed the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in 1977, the intent was clear, give the president a nimble tool to respond to grave external threats to national security. It was not meant to be a lever for trade wars, economic bullying, or personal vendettas. Yet here we are, watching Donald Trump invoke IEEPA as the legal backbone for a sweeping, chaotic, and likely unconstitutional set of global tariffs.

On its face, Trump’s maneuvering is baffling, a 10% baseline tariff on all imported goods, with additional targeted spikes reaching as high as 54%. Allies like Canada and the EU are lumped in with adversaries like China. Retaliation has been swift and severe. Markets have plummeted. And the Federal Reserve, caught off guard, has issued rare warnings about the inflationary and destabilizing effects. Even Trump loyalist Elon Musk has lost $12 billion in a single day, and is publicly distancing himself from the policy.

But there’s something deeper at play here. Trump isn’t just trying to shift trade balances. He’s using the legal architecture of national emergency to sidestep Congress entirely. The IEEPA allows the executive to block transactions, freeze assets, and act swiftly in crises. But nowhere does it explicitly authorize tariff-setting as a tool of emergency economic defense. In fact, no previous president has interpreted it this way.

Enter the paradox: a law meant to protect the U.S. from international threats is now being used to threaten the global economy on behalf of the U.S. And in doing so, Trump may have transformed America into the very threat IEEPA was intended to guard against.

This is not lost on legal scholars, or even some conservatives. A new lawsuit filed by the conservative-backed New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), with ties to Leonard Leo and Charles Koch, argues that Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose across-the-board tariffs is a blatant overreach. The suit, brought on behalf of a small Florida stationery business, points out that there’s no legal nexus between Trump’s declared opioid emergency and a global tariff regime. The tariffs, the plaintiffs argue, are clearly about shrinking the trade deficit, not combatting fentanyl.

GOP lawmakers are also beginning to balk. Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley and Rand Paul have joined Democrats in opposing Trump’s emergency declaration. In the House, Nebraska Rep. Don Bacon is preparing a bill that would require congressional approval for future tariffs imposed under IEEPA or similar authorities. And while House Republican leadership is trying to shield members from a floor vote, resistance is building beneath the surface.

Economically, the fallout is just beginning. Tariff-induced inflation is pushing the U.S. toward stagflation: low growth, high prices, and no clear escape hatch. Meanwhile, international trust in U.S. economic leadership is evaporating. Canada and the EU have already pledged to retaliate. Even Vietnam, once seen as an alternative to Chinese manufacturing, is reevaluating its relationship with the U.S.

So what’s the endgame? Some analysts believe this chaos is the point. By creating a self-inflicted economic emergency, Trump sets the stage to further consolidate executive control, particularly over the Fed, which Project 2025 aims to place under White House authority. With the economy in freefall and inflation surging, Trump could argue that only bold, centralized leadership can save the country. The Fed, Congress, and any institution that resists could be cast as obstructionist or even traitorous.

By using this emergency authority to launch a unilateral economic assault on allies and rivals alike, Trump has essentially weaponized a national security statute for personal economic ideology and political dominance. The resulting chaos, tariffs without congressional input, retaliatory moves from Canada, the EU, and Asia, and global markets in freefall, is making the U.S. look less like a stabilizing superpower and more like a rogue state with nukes and a printing press.

The paradox is chilling! Trump declares an economic emergency to fight foreign threats... by becoming one himself. And in bypassing Congress to “defend the people,” he is stripping the people’s representatives of their constitutional role.

IEEPA wasn’t designed for this. The founders didn’t design the presidency for this. And the American people shouldn’t tolerate it.

#IEEPA#TradeWar#ForeignPolicy

[saywhat-politics]

The Nebraska lawmaker is the first House Republican to recommend the president fire the secretary of Defense.

Rep. Don Bacon, a prominent Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, became the first sitting GOP lawmaker Monday to suggest President Donald Trump should fire Pete Hegseth — calling the chaos at the Pentagon one reason why many Hill Republicans were privately uneasy with the Defense secretary’s nomination in the first place.

“I had concerns from the get-go because Pete Hegseth didn’t have a lot of experience,” Bacon, a former Air Force general who now chairs of the subcommittee on cyber issues, said in an interview. “I like him on Fox. But does he have the experience to lead one of the largest organizations in the world? That’s a concern.”

[posttexasstressdisorder]

Democracy Docket

Wednesday, April 23

As the chorus of calls for President Donald Trump’s administration to return wrongly removed Kilmar Abrego García to the U.S. grows louder, it exposes a key weakness in one of the president’s favorite tactics: disinformation. Also in this week’s Eye On The Right: Trump targets New York Attorney General Letitia James. 

As always, thanks for reading. 

— Matt Cohen, Senior Reporter

How the Kilmar Abrego García Case Exposes the Weakness of Trump’s Favorite Tactic

Ever since the government arrested and accidentally imprisoned Kilmar Abrego García to El Salvador, the response from the Trump administration has exposed cracks in its disinformation playbook. 

To recap: García, a sheet metal apprentice in Maryland, was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers on March 12 and sent to a hard labor prison in El Salvador. But Abrego García had a special immigration status — an immigration judge in 2019 had determined that he should not be sent to his home country because he could be persecuted and tortured by gangs that extorted his family. The U.S. Department of Justice even admitted in court filings that Abrego García’s imprisonment was an “administrative error.” 

Multiple courts — including the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 9-0 ruling — concluded that Abrego García shouldn’t have been removed and that the Trump administration must bring him back home. But in Trump’s world, there’s no such thing as being wrong, sorry or held responsible. As such, his playbook has been to, instead, distort reality and the truth rather than own up to mistakes.

Not only has the White House repeatedly ignored court orders to bring Abrego García back to the U.S. but it has openly mocked the calls for his return. What’s more, the Trump administration is deploying an aggressive disinformation campaign in an apparent effort to obscure the fact that it messed up by deporting and incarcerating a person in error who was legally residing in the U.S.

In several press conferences and news appearances, Trump officials have repeatedly insisted that Abrego García was an illegal alien (false), an MS-13 gang member (wrong) and that the government didn’t make a mistake when it sent him to El Salvador (a lie that contradicts the Justice Department’s own court filings). They’ve also gone so far as to blatantly misinterpret and mischaracterize the Supreme Court’s clear order to bring him back. 

Trump’s history of spinning webs of lies to never admit wrongdoing is so extensive that it has its own Wikipedia page, with nearly 700 references to back up all the examples. And while this strategy has, sadly, worked out for him in the past, I’m not so sure it’s going to hold up this time around. 

There’s already a chorus of voices in the Republican party and a larger network of influential conservatives telling Trump that his administration messed up here and it should take the L. In an interview with NBC News, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said that the administration made a mistake. "Look, this was a screw-up in my opinion," Kennedy said. "The administration won't admit it. But this was a screw-up." Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) tweeted about "preserving checks and balances" when he shared a Wall Street Journal editorial warning that defying the courts on Abrego García "isn't worth the political cost for [Trump] or the country."

Even right-wing podcaster Joe Rogan, who’s been a big supporter of Trump, had harsh words about Abrego García’s removal and the larger effort of transferring Venezuelan migrants without any shred of due process. 

At this point, I don’t know what will happen with Abrego García. After Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) held a visit with him last week — which has led to four more congressional Democrats traveling to El Salvador to demand his release — the pressure for the Trump administration to bring him back is only going to grow stronger. And I think it won’t dissipate until Abrego García is back in the country. 

But the question on my mind isn’t so much if Trump will bring Abrego García back, but how will he spin it so he doesn’t have to admit any wrongdoing?

Trump Goes After Letitia James

When Trump returned to the White House, he vowed to go after his political enemies — a promise that, while completely deranged, is one he’s making good on. And his latest target is someone who has worked to hold him accountable for a handful of his numerous alleged criminal endeavors: New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Last week, a top housing official in the Trump administration urged the DOJ to open a criminal investigation into James for alleged bank fraud, for becoming a co-borrower on the mortgage loan for a house in Norfolk, Va. that her niece purchased. 

U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency Director William Pulte claimed in his letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi that James falsely listed the house in Virginia as her primary residence, which he said was an effort to avoid paying higher interest rates — a move that would constitute fraud. 

James has long been at the top of Trump’s list of political enemies ever since she won a $454 million judgment against him last year, in a lawsuit claiming that the Trump Organization lied about the value of its assets on financial statements given to banks. Over the years, Trump has had no shortage of unkind words for James and it was only a matter of time before his administration went after her. 

The problem is, of course, this effort feels like the Trump administration scraping the bottom of the barrel to go after her. 

James’ office was quick to respond to the allegations that Pulte outlined in his letter to Bondi, according to the Associated Press. Her office provided a partial copy of the loan application that shows where she checked off a box that says she doesn’t plan to occupy the property as her primary residence.

“Donald Trump’s weaponization of the federal government continues to careen out of control – and now they are using cherry-picked information to attack the Attorney General,” her office said in a statement.

Something like bank fraud — especially misrepresenting your primary residence on a loan application — doesn’t need a deep investigation to figure out. Compare what’s on the form to where James actually lives, and where her niece — who she co-signed the application for — lives. If James committed actual fraud, there wouldn’t be a big media blitz by the Trump administration announcing the opening of an investigation— they would likely just move forward with charges based on the evidence gathered. By announcing it this way, the administration can tarnish James’ image without actually having to follow through with anything. It knows that the right-wing media ecosystem will pick up on every single thing the Trump administration puts out. In fact, it has already run with the false story that James committed fraud. 

"Attorney General James is focused every single day on protecting New Yorkers, especially as this administration weaponizes the federal government against the rule of law and the Constitution,” her office said. “She will not be intimidated by bullies — no matter who they are.”

This is one of our free weekly newsletters. If you were forwarded this email, you can subscribe to our newsletters here. 

Democracy Docket, LLC 

250 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 400

Washington, D.C., 20009

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Walter Einenkel at Daily Kos:

Democratic Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota will be touring a series of Republican-held House districts across the country, with his first stops in Iowa and Nebraska. In the wake of President Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s firing of essential federal workers and disastrously unpopular budget plan, the GOP has chosen to refuse their increasingly anxious and angry constituents town halls.  Walz’s first stop is in Iowa’s 3rd District, which is represented by Republican Zach Nunn, who narrowly defeated Democrat Lanon Baccam in 2024.  When asked why he’s not scheduling any town halls, Nunn released a statement saying that he has “held hundreds of events with Iowans, including open forums and listening sessions in all 21 counties in the Iowa Third Congressional District. My record of delivering wins speaks for itself, and I’ll continue to always put Iowans first in D.C.” But Walz isn’t so sure that Nunn has made himself available to his constituents. [...] After his stop in Iowa, Walz is planning to visit Nebraska’s 2nd District, which is represented by Republican Don Bacon. Bacon defeated Democratic candidate Tony Vargas in an even tighter race, and he has not held any official town halls since.  [...] Walz plans on taking his town hall tour to GOP-held districts in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Ohio. Fellow progressives Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York have also announced anti-Trump tours through red districts.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) takes his town halls tour to GOP districts where their House Representative is too much of a coward to face their constituents. This also joins efforts by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) and New York Congresswoman AOC (D) to hold town halls in GOP-held districts.

[maturemenoftvandfilms]

Top 10 Politicians 2024

DISCLAIMER: This list is for 'politicians I'd like to fuck' and is purely based on appearance, not politics. If you don't agree with my selection, either scroll onwards, post your own idea of a PILF, or try another blog. People are tired of hearing weak minded, mentally broken people wine about reality.

#10. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

An American politician serving as the senior United States senator from South Carolina, a seat he has held since 2003. Of course I’ve got my senate bottom bitch, Sen. Graham here. I kinda understand all the political hate, but I think he’s a mature southern gentleman from my state and I’d love to beat his ass like he stole something from me. And when I’m done with him, I’ll send him over to the next guy as I know I’m not the only one who’d fuck him.

#9. Rick Pate (R-AL)

An American politician serving as the 30th Commissioner of Agriculture and Industries in Alabama. He just looks like a guy I could spend a weekend with… fucking like rabbits.

#8. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)

An American politician and attorney serving as the junior United States Senator for Texas since 2013. Honestly, Ted’s here and this high only to piss off liberal, super political fuckers who can’t separate looks from politics. Now that doesn’t mean I don’t want him naked in my bed with my jizz all over his face.

#7. Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-PA 15th District) 

An American politician serving as the U.S. representative for Pennsylvania’s 15th congressional district since 2019. Nice and manly, he looks like he would be a champion in bed.

#6. Gov. J. B. Pritzker (D-IL)

An American businessman, philanthropist, attorney, venture capitalist, and politician serving as the 43rd governor of Illinois since 2019. J. B. seems like the type that could be had. Nothing to base that on other than he has a look of a guy that if you get him in the right situation, cock will be in that mouth and ass. Plus, he’s rich. I’m not saying that’s a reason to date him. Just a nice side benefit.

#5. Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE 2nd District) 

An American politician and retired military officer serving as the U.S. representative for Nebraska’s 2nd congressional district since 2017. Handsome, nice tits and body. This man is husband material. Better yet, trophy husband material. The type of guy you can walk into a room with him on your arm, telling everyone “Yeah… I’m fucking this.”

#4. Michael G. Strain (R-LA)

Mike is a short chub with nice tits and a body that was made for bottoming. How could I not be in lust.

#3. Lt. Gov. Mike Kehoe (R-MO)

An American politician serving as the 48th lieutenant governor of Missouri, having been in office since June 18, 2018. Mike embodies all-American masculinity and has many male fans here on tumblr who'd happily follow the Lt Gov. into any seedy roadside motel for oral service and a nice tight ass to breed.

#2. Rep. Michael (R-IL 12th District) 

An American politician. This man is almost perfect. The only thing wrong with him is that he isn’t in my bed. Nice build, nice dresser and a very handsome face.

#1. Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT)

An American politician serving as the senior United States Senator from Montana, in office since 2007. If you didn’t know that Jon would be my #1, you must be a new follower.