LeMario Brown: A Case Study in the New Populism

Donald Trump didn’t just disrupt the Republican Party; he rewired the entire political ecosystem. The new normal isn’t polished resumes or party loyalty—it’s emotional resonance, economic urgency, and cultural authenticity. And in Georgia, that shift is already reshaping the terrain.

So what this means for Georgia Democrats?

1. The Old Playbook Is Crumbling

- Voters—especially in rural and working-class communities—aren’t moved by institutional endorsements or technocratic policy briefs. They want someone who feels like them, who talks like them, and who fights like them.

LeMario Brown on his tractor in Fort Valley

- Democrats who cling to metro-centric messaging or elite donor circles risk alienating the very voters they need to win back.

2. The New Litmus Test: Can You Speak Bread-and-Butter Truths?

- Candidates must show they understand the cost of groceries, the fear of hospital closures, and the pride of land ownership. It’s not about ideology—it’s about dignity.

LeMario Brown is emerging as a rural centrist populist who reflects this new political reality:

- Authenticity Over Optics: He’s a pecan farmer, not a polished insider. His voice carries the weight of lived experience, not rehearsed talking points.

- Economic Justice as a Unifier: Brown’s message “We all got to eat” cuts across partisan lines. It’s not left or right; it’s survival and fairness.

- Community-Rooted Solutions: From youth violence to infrastructure, he talks about patrolling with the community, not policing over it. That’s a populist ethos rooted in empowerment, not control.

And crucially, he’s not afraid to challenge the Democratic establishment. His work with nonpartisan civic groups like Peach Concerned Citizens shows a commitment to listening first, labeling second.

So what this means for the Lt. Governor Race?

If Brown runs for Lt. Governor, he could:

- Disrupt the Democratic primary by forcing a conversation about rural equity, veterans, law enforcement, economic justice, and cultural preservation.

- Attract swing voters who feel abandoned by both parties but still believe in Georgia’s potential.

- Redefine what it means to be a Democrat in the South—less about party orthodoxy, more about pragmatic populism.

This is the kind of candidacy that doesn’t just win votes, it reshapes coalitions. If Democrats embrace this shift, they could build a durable majority rooted in working-class dignity and rural pride. If they resist it, they risk becoming irrelevant in the very places they need to win.

Rural Georgians to keep an eye on in 2025 and beyond

Ron Johnson

Mayor of Donalsonville (Seminole County)

Johnson was elected mayor of Donalsonville back in 2020, located in the southwest corner of Georgia. A graduate of Florida A&M, He made history in becoming the first black candidate to ever become mayor of the city. Johnson. He currently works for the Seminole County Board of Education.

Jeren Fullmore

Pearson, Ga City Councilman (Atkinson County)

Fullmore elected in 2023 is serving his first term as councilman for the city of Pearson (Atkinson County). Fullmore is a U.S. Army Veteran and former Deputy Sheriff for Tattnall County.

Nikki Bryant

Owner of Adams Pharmacy in Preston, Ga (Webster County)

In a time where many young rural Georgians leave home and never return, Adams did the opposite. Adams who is a third generation Georgian decided to return to her hometown to open a pharmacy to address a crucial need for citizens in her home county as well as surrounding areas of Webster County. Independent Pharmacists like Bryant are need more now than ever in many of rural Georgia's poorest counties. 

James Hitchcock

Owner, 3H Cattle Co. (Washington County)

Hitchcock with his daughter

Hitchcock, a 4th Generation farmer that farms over 1500 acres of land out of Washington County. He currently serves as County Commissioner for Washington County and is considered the leader of the next wave of Georgia Ag producers.

Lisa James Mayor Pro-Tem St. Mary's (Camden County)

James is currently the Mayor Pro Tem of St. Mary's, Ga located in the southeast corner of Georgia. She is the former VP-Regional Business for Bank of America and currently is a financial representative for Modern Woodmen of America

Micah King

Former City Councilman, Glennville (Tattnall County)

King served on the Glennville. Ga City Council later ran for mayor of the city. He is also a community organizer who is an entrepreneur, President at Animation TV Network. He also works as an Financial Counselor at Soldier for Life-Transition Assistance program and at Fort Stewart where he assisted soldiers and their families from military to civilian life.

Jenny Robbins

Community Development Manager, Georgia EMC (Clinch County)

Robbins represents Georgia's Electric Membership Corporations in South Georgia by providing educational training, strategic planning and leadership development. She was also Main Street Manager for the City of Homerville

Jim Gillis, IV

Financial Planner, Investment Advisor (Clarke County)

A native of Soperton, Ga, Gillis graduated from the University of Georgia and now currently serves as a Investment Advisor Representative for Northwest Asset Management. Gillis comes from one of Georgia's legendary political families where his father, great grandfather played major roles in shaping Georgia politics and Treutlen County. Gillis IV is also president of Soperton Naval Stores and trustee of the Georgia Forestry Foundation.

What A Obama Re-Election Would Mean for Sanford Bishop?

If President Obama is re-elected, what will mean for Congressman Sanford Bishop, who let's not forget was the co-chair for Obama's Campaign here in Georgia back in 2008. In addition Bishop has voted in favor of key domestic policies from President Barack Obama. For example, he voted in favor of the 2009 approximately $800 billion economic stimulus package & the hotly debated Healthcare Legislation, which caused him to sweat it out during his 2010 re-election bid which many, including me thought he had lost, only to wake up the next morning to find he squeaked out a victory.

Bishop is heavily favored to defeat John House, republican out of Muscogee County in the newly redrawn 2nd Congressional district which now includes the majority of Bibb County.

If President Obama wins re-election,  Bishop should be in line to become the next Secretary of Agriculture during a Obama second term..PERIOD! One of the knocks on Bishop back in 2008 when Obama was searching for a Ag Secretary was that he wasn't on record with a agricultural vision that addresses the production, trade and sustainability issues of the 21st century. I don't if that's true or not, but I don't buy it.

Bishop currently sits on the subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, as well as the powerful Appropriations Committee & one of the leading voices on Agriculture in Congress.

If not Secretary of Agriculture, then U.S. Ambassador to Cuba would be another option for President Obama. Why? The loosening of trade sanctions against the communist country will make it easier for America’s farmers and ranchers to sell their high-quality products.The political relationship between the United States and Cuba has been tense over the last 50 years. Yet, expanded efforts by both governments over the last decade suggest that U.S. farm exports could increase to the Caribbean island. The U.S. exported $4 billion in farm products, mostly feed stuffs, to Cuba from 2002 to 2008. About 95 percent of the total included corn, wheat, soybeans and soybean meal. The largest U.S. value-added product exported to Cuba is poultry......guess what? Bishop hails from one of, or if not the leading state in terms of Poultry Production, Georgia.

I don't know if any of this will materialize under a Obama second term, but given how Congressman Bishop has supported the majority of the president's policies, even at the risk of losing his seat 2years ago, he should reward him with a post in his administration. It would be the icing on the cake for a what has been a good legislative career for Bishop


 

Attention Georgia Farmers: Ryan's Plan Calls for Steep Cuts to Agriculture

A letter sent to President Obama by Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and eight other Democratic senators is intended to counter Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget proposal and discourage the administration from supporting large cuts in farm programs. Ryan has proposed $30 billion in cuts over 10 years to the direct payments and crop insurance programs and $18 billion in additional cuts that would most likely come from conservation programs.

In their letter, the senators pointed to droughts, floods and severe rains that have impacted planting in both the North and the South as proof that “farming is an extraordinarily high-risk undertaking,” showing that “farmers need tools to manage their risk in case of natural disasters and increasingly volatile prices.”The senators noted not only the importance of farm subsidies, but also the need for conservation programs, support for local and regional agriculture, incentives for rural job creation and research to increase productivity.

Read Letter obtained by the Hagstrom Report: Letter to President Obama

A Fair Deal For Farmers & Ranchers

I got this email from the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition:

Farmers and ranchers who raise livestock and poultry deserve a fair deal and a level playing field with meat and poultry processors. Some members of the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock, however, would prefer to allow powerful meat and poultry packers and processers to continue to get away with unfair and deceptive trade practices.


The Subcommittee held a hearing last week that focused on a new set of USDA rules that would restore competition and contract fairness to livestock and poultry markets. The new rules, mandated by the 2008 Farm Bill, are strongly supported by NSAC and have been praised by major farm organizations including the National Farmers Union, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund-United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA) and by more than 60 other organizations including NSAC who signed this letter last week in support of the new rules.

Several members of the House Agriculture Subcommittee, however, made crystal clear that they were firmly allied with large corporate packers and processors and had little concern farmers and ranchers. Chairman David Scott (D-GA), Ranking Member Randy Nuegebauer (R-TX), Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Jim Costa (D-CA), Steve King (R-IA), Walt Minnick (D-ID), David Roe (R-TN) and Michael Conaway (R-TX) spent the good part of two hours slamming the proposed regulations. They expressed alarm over the potential consequences for some of the most powerful and wealthy corporations in the nation, whose unfair and deceptive practices and sheer market power over those who produce our food could be curtailed by the regulations. They rebuffed the concerns of USDA Under-Secretary Edward Avalos who testified that part of the drastic decrease in our farming population is in response to packer and processor market concentration and the lack of fair prices and fair dealing in the marketplace.

All of us who care about our nation's farmers and ranchers must tell our Senators and Representatives that we support USDA's proposed rules protecting farmers and ranchers from the unfair and deceptive trade practieces of livestock and poultry packers and processors.

Call or email your Representative and Senators.

Urge them to support the USDA proposed rules that restore competition and contract fairness to livestock and poultry markets. Tell them we need a level playing field for family farmers and ranchers.
Urge them to Contact USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack and express their support for the proposed rule.

Farm Service Agency, or (FSA) Gets Backing from USDA

USDA’s Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food initiative recently highlighted Farm Service Agency (FSA) resources that can be used to expand and diversify farm businesses, preserve natural resources critical to future farm income and create links with local and regional food systems.

The Farm Storage Facility Loan program was expanded by the 2008 Farm Bill to include authority for use by vegetable, fruit, and nut producers as well as other farmers to use these loans for the construction of on-farm storage and minimal processing facilities. Controlling the product from seed to sale allows farmers to target specialty markets and retain more of the final sale price, increasing economic activity in rural areas.

Farmers and Ranchers can use FSA’s Guaranteed and Direct Loan programs either for farm ownership or for farm or ranch operating expenses, including for value-added and direct sale activities. The 2008 Farm Bill included special provisions to increase FSA credit opportunities for beginning, youth and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. These direct loans and guarantees are designed specifically for producers not yet able to receive financing through commercial lending sources.

FSA’s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) helps producers take fragile land out of production and establish conservation practices on working lands. Implementing conservation practices not only preserves and beautifies farmland but changing to sustainable production practices can allow farmers to realize a better price for their products through adopting value-added production methods. The new wildlife habitat the conservation practices create also offer new income opportunities through agritourism and hunting activities.

NSAC submitted comments this week to FSA on the new CRP-TIP program to help beginning and minority farmers and ranchers secure land coming out of the CRP program to engage in sustainable grazing or sustainable cropping operations.

You can get more information about all of these programs at your local FSA office.

Senate Approves 2011 Fiscal Year Agriculture Spending Bill

On Thursday, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the Fiscal Year 2011 Agricultural Appropriations bill by voice vote. The action on the agriculture bill came after a lengthy partisan debate over the overall discretionary spending levels for the entire government for FY 2011, which concluded with the adoption of Chairman Inouye’s proposed spending allocations.

The agriculture bill proposes to spend $22.838 billion for all discretionary spending (net of a variety of cuts to mandatory programs) for the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and several smaller government agencies. This is nearly $300 million less than the FY 2010 level and $27 million less than what President Obama requested.

After winning support from USDA, the White House and then the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee asked for a $30 million funding level for the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program. We regret to say that today the Senate Committee adopted a far lower,, $23 million, SARE funding level. Both bills include $15 million for research and education grants and $5 million for extension and outreach grants, but they differ on funding for the SARE state matching grant program, with the House at $10 million and the Senate at only $3 million. NSAC strongly supports the $30 million funding level and will continue to urge the Senate to come up to that level before finishing work on its bill this year.

Whereas the House Subcommittee-passed bill refrains from cutting any farm bill mandatory conservation programs other than the traditional $270 million cut from the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and $165 million cut from the Small Watersheds program, the Senate bill includes some but not all of the additional conservation cuts proposed by President Obama. The Senate Committee-passed bill adopts a $75 million cut to the Wetlands Reserve Program, a $14 million cut to the Grasslands Reserve Program, a $15 million cut to the Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program, and a $5 million cut to the conservation portion of the Agricultural Management Assistance Program. The Administration had also requested cuts to the Conservation Stewardship Program and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, but those cuts were rejected by the Senate Committee. NSAC appreciates the sparing of those two programs, but continues to oppose the additional raids on farm bill conservation spending, and will continue to urge the Senate to find alternative offsets before bringing their bill to conclusion later this year.

A few other bill highlights follow:

Research — In addition to the SARE news above, the Senate Committee bill includes $5 million for Organic Transitions research, the same level as the House bill and $5 million more than the zero budget requested by the President. For the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), the Senate bill provides $310 million, compared to $312 million in the House bill, $262 million in the current year, and the $429 million Obama requested level.

Rural Development — Like the House bill, the Senate bill would level funding for the Value-Added Producer Grants (VAPG) program at $20.4 million. The total Senate funding level for Rural Business and Industry Guaranteed Loans would provide $49.7 million in loan guarantees for local and regional food enterprises versus $47.1 million in the House bill (the same as the FY 2010 level). The Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program (RMAP) fares much better in the Senate bill than the House bill. The House bill would allow the $4 million in mandatory farm bill money to move forward, but provides no additional discretionary funds above that level, whereas the Senate bill provides an additional $4.35 million, for a total of $8.35 million. The President had requested an additional $7.7 million. Rural Coop Development Grants would get a modest increase to $12.4 million in the Senate bill. The ATTRA National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service program would receive $2.8 million in both bills, same as the current funding level.

Credit — With additional emergency funding for farm loans still pending in the supplemental appropriations bill slowly making its way through Congress, the Senate regular appropriations bill passed out of Committee today includes higher farm loan amounts than the House bill. Whereas the House bill provides $475 million for Direct Farm Ownership Loans, the Senate bill provides $650 million. For Direct Farm Operating loans, the Senate provides $1.1 billion versus $900 million in the House bill. The Senate bill also includes more for guaranteed operating loans.

Beginning and Minority Farmers — The majority of direct farm ownership and farm operating loans go to beginning and to socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, so the credit numbers above are relevant here as well. Sadly, neither bill has provided funding for the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Individual Development Account (IDA) program. NSAC will continue to push both houses of Congress to find a way to provide $5 million for this important farm bill program. The two bills have a big difference of opinion over the new Office of Advocacy and Outreach, the central USDA coordinating and policy arm for minority farmer, beginning farmer, and small farm issues. The House bill would match the President’s request for $7 million, but the Senate proposes only level funding at $1.7 million. NSAC will continue to press for the full requested amount.

Organic – Both the House and Senate bills adopt the requested level of $10.1 million for the National Organic Program, and as noted above, both adopt $5 million for the Organic Transitions integrated research program. It also appears that the Senate bill has included $1 million for the Organic Data Initiative, though we are still waiting on confirmation.

Cap And Trade: A Difference Of Opinion About Benefits To Agriculture.

Read Farm Gate's Stu Ellis Piece. There was no way to share this, so I decided to copy/paste the article here instead.



What have you heard about Cap and Trade lately? Probably not much, since it was put on the back burner so health care could get full Congressional attention. But since it was not moved to the front after health care was resolved, does not mean that it is dead. After all, ideas never die in Congress, they may linger, but they never die, and can always be brought up for debate or inclusion in other legislation. So Cap and Trade, which was designed to manage climate change by taxing carbon based energy and trading credits between carbon emitters and carbon sequesters, could be revived.

When Cap and Trade was last discussed, both the US Department of Agriculture and the US Environmental Protection Agency indicated that Cap and Trade would have a modest impact on agriculture. Yes, fuel prices would rise along with energy costs related to fertilizer production and the manufacture of crop protectants. But advocates also said farmers would be paid for their no-till practices, planting cover crops, and making other efforts to return carbon to the soil.

Hold your horses, says the Congressional Research Service in a recent report to Congress. The CRS policy analysts say, “When assessing climate change legislation such as a cap-and-trade program, it is difficult for economic models to forecast costs and associated impacts several decades into the future, much less beyond.” The analysts think that regulatory requirements that would be imposed now would become fragile in the future, there would be technology developments, and it is impossible to predict public behavior on such issues as climate change.

In defense of the USDA and the EPA, the Congressional Research Service says the economic impact estimates of the pending legislation are not unique, but CRS is not willing to agree with the estimates. Regarding the USDA’s and EPA’s conclusion that “carbon offsets revenue could yield net economic gains for the U.S. agricultural sectors,” CRS says, “These conclusions are rife with uncertainty. However, the uncertainty does not necessarily suggest that the economic impacts would turn out to be dramatically different than predicted, simply that they are unknowable.”

The specific concerns expressed by the CRS policy analysts about the USDA and EPA assumptions were in several different areas of the Cap and Trade issue:
1) USDA and EPA contended that carbon payments to farmers would cause land prices to rise and more land to be planted into forests to obtain even higher payments, CRS says land will not be converted away from crop production if carbon trading payments are not high enough to entice land owners to convert.
2) Will farmers respond positively to Cap and Trade? While USDA and EPA believe they would, the CRS staff says the non-economic factors and social norms within farming cannot be estimated, and they cannot be considered a moving force for farmers to endorse Cap and Trade programs.
3) Since USDA and EPA did not account for the costs of converting farmland away from row crops and into cover crops and forests, including the loss of any farm program payments, it would be difficult to assume that farmers would be willing to participate.
4) For tens of millions of acres of farmland to be converted from row crops to forests as the USDA and EPA proposal suggests, CRS says no one has thought about the capacity constraints and other logistics issues related to such a change, and there cannot be an assumption that sufficient changes would be made in production to achieve the goals of the climate change policies.
5) Finally, the CRS analysts say USDA and EPA did not take into consideration all of the legal and contractual constraints that might affect participation in a carbon market. In other words, an operator with an annual cash rent lease would be prevented from converting row crops to a long term forest planting program, which is a constraint not considered by USDA. CRS says land owners should be courted for participation, not farm operators.

The Congressional Research Service policy staff says there are concerns that larger farmers, or those which produce certain crops, would receive disproportional benefits under a Cap and Trade program, but the CRS economic model says it is really impossible to predict how different farm sizes would be affected. While large operations may benefit more from their economy of scale, CRS also says small operations might benefit more because their typical diversification may allow them to respond to non-economic influences, and they have been more willing to participate in programs such as the Conservation Reserve.

Summary:
While USDA and the EPA believe that a Cap and Trade program would be a net benefit for agriculture, the Congressional Research Service says there are too many dynamics involved to be able to predict anything with any certainty. That includes whether benefits would go to either large or small operations or how farms are organized or their geography. CRS indicates that USDA and EPA have several flaws in their assumptions about the Cap and Trade benefits to agriculture.


Stu Ellis

The Water Issue is critical for Rural Georgia Farmers & their viability. Metro Atlanta better look elsewhere to solve their water issue!

Concerns over water here in Georgia is a growing concern for citizens of this state, especially among farmers.

Water concerns have intensified for reasons such as:

Population growth and development that put heavy demands on water availability

Most of Georgia’s growth has occurred in the Metro Atlanta area and, most recently, in suburban counties south of the city. This major metropolitan area’s primary water source is the Chattahoochee River Basin, which is Georgia’s, and the nation’s, smallest watershed supplying such a large population.

Neighboring states Alabama & Florida are suing for greater water access & also include in their suit other rivers entering their borders, as well as the Upper Floridan Aquifer, which underlies a large part of the southern Coastal Plain and is heavily used by agriculture.

These states have much stronger cases to make because they have already have statewide water management plans, while Georgia doesn't.The Georgia Water Coalition, a statewide partnership of 140 community and environmental organizations, is a strong supporter of a plan that maintains water as a public resource and manages water in a sustainable manner for all users.

Georgia farmers, who depend on irrigation to sustain their crops, are concerned about losing their irrigation water to Atlanta. Farmers in Southwest Georgia struggle with sandy, pebbly, quickly draining soil. As a result, irrigation becomes a vital resource to keep the soil moist and fertile.


Atlanta needs to take a hard look at what's happening in the metro area if you ask me.

As the metro area continue to grow, the demand for water will only increase. DuBose Porter recently proposed raising the levels at lake Lanier to two feet to accomodate the water issue facing Metro Atlanta, which sounds like a good idea to me. This is a issue, along with Education, Jobs, Transportation, Ethics will define the statewide elections in november.

Georgia Agriculture is the state's number 1 econimic industry.


Agriculture contributes more than $57 billion, or about 16%, annually to Georgia’s $350 billion economic output.

Georgia’s top ten commodities in order of their rank are broilers, cotton, forestry, peanuts, beef, dairy, hatching layers, horses, greenhouse, and container nursery.

Agriculture has a significant economic impact, especially in the more rural areas of the state. The largest source of farm income in the northern half of the state is commercial broilers. The southern half of the state is predominately row crop agriculture.

Georgia is one of the East Coast’s biggest agriculture states and is the nation’s largest producer of peanuts, poultry and pecans.


Other crops produced in Georgia include apples, berries, cabbage, corn, cotton and cottonseed, cucumbers, grapes, hay, oats, onions, peaches, rye, sorghum grain, soybeans, tobacco, tomatoes, vegetables, watermelons, wheat, and ornamentals, turf grass, and other nursery and greenhouse commodities.

Georgia is the number-one peanut-producing state in the country, accounting for approximately 45 percent of the crop's national acreage and production.

So imagine if water from Rural Georgia is being consumed by the urban sprawl of Metro Atlanta, where does that leave our famrers? Some would go out of business, while others may opt for early retirement. But the biggest impact probably would be on rural communities that rely on agriculture to bring in much needed income to desolate, isolated towns where few industries or business are located to pump money into the local economy. Water is a critical issue for the state & most of all our farmers.

Anyone wants to be Agriculture Commissioner?

I tried to persuade State Rep. Gerald Greene (D-Cuthbert) to consider running for Agriculture Commissioner, but he tells me he is happy where he is. With rumors speculation that Terry Coleman, (who I endorsed for the position) won't run for AG Commissioner, dems don't have a candidate in the wings to run for the seat. One e-mail sent to me that Alan Powell may be interested, but a choice that would make sense would be Sanford Bishop. I doubt he would leave his seat to come home to run for the post, but he would be the odds-on favorite to take over Irvin's seat in 2010.

Democratic Candidate David Poythress on Farmers, transportation.

I’ve been reaching out to our state’s lifeblood, our agriculture community. Several farmers have shared their concerns with me regarding the new Secretary of Labor’s proposed suspension of the H2A regulations. As you may know, our growers have many regulatory hoops to jump each season. They put together their budgets and plans for the year in anticipation of the rules which went into effect on January 17th. In mid-March, the Secretary of Labor created much uncertainty by moving to suspend the new rules. I have written a formal request urging the US Department of Labor to reconsider this action that will have a serious and adverse effect on our farming community and our state’s economy. It’s not fair to our growers or their workers to change the rules in the middle of the season. Click here to read my full statement.

After weeks of deliberation, debate and political skirmishes, I think the politicians at the Capitol owe us some leadership on transportation in the final week of the Legislative Session. But with the final days upon us, it’s tough not to feel like we are stuck between Governor Sonny Perdue’s power grab and the Legislature’s inability to act. This is unacceptable, and both sides shoulder the blame.



Governor Perdue’s Transportation Plan will gut the Department of Transportation and make every transportation project a political pawn of the Legislature. This is an open invitation to political favoritism and corruption. The Legislature has floated a compromise plan that does not sufficiently address our critical transportation needs and relies on a sales tax that will be available only after a statewide referendum in November of next year. Their best case scenario keeps us waiting until 2011 for results.

If I were Governor, this is what I would do on transportation:

1. Direct the Board of Transportation to dust off every transportation study on the shelf and call for a “Transportation Summit” to prioritize these projects using planning guidelines, not political influence.

2. Sign an Executive Order that authorizes and encourages tele-working and “flex time” commuting for all state workers that will alleviate the number of cars on the road during the busiest drive times.

3. Develop a long range plan to relocate state agencies that no longer need to be in downtown Atlanta.

4. Direct the Board of Transportation to create new routes for 18-wheeler trucks that will direct that traffic away from our metro areas to ease traffic congestion.

5. Direct the Board of Transportation to identify the top 100 traffic congested intersections and surface streets so we can begin re-engineering them to reduce congestion in those areas.

6. Do everything necessary to expand the Port of Savannah in a way that will attract more shipments and create jobs.

7. Sign an Executive Order protecting the 13 member Board of Transportation that represents different regions of the state.

I'm going to tell you right now, Mr. Poythress is starting to grow on me. I really like this guy.