The Cleland Way: The Quiet Leadership Guiding Jason Moon

If you’ve followed Georgia politics long enough, you know Max Cleland wasn’t just another name on a ballot. He was a walking lesson in service, sacrifice, and the kind of grit you can’t fake. Folks remember him as the Vietnam veteran who came home without three limbs but never lost his purpose. They remember the Secretary of State who modernized the office, the U.S. Senator who fought for veterans and working people, and the public servant who believed government ought to lift folks up, not weigh them down.

So when Jason Moon, Cleland’s first cousin and longtime aide steps into public life, it’s impossible not to see the fingerprints of that legacy on the way he carries himself.

Moon didn’t learn politics from a distance. He learned it in the trenches, watching Cleland work rooms from Bainbridge to Blue Ridge, always with the same message: service first, ego last. Cleland’s leadership style was steady, disciplined, and people‑centered. He didn’t chase headlines. He chased solutions. And he expected the folks around him to do the same.

That’s the environment Moon grew up in politically. Not the loud, cable‑news version of politics, the real kind. The kind where you sit with veterans who feel forgotten. The kind where you talk to workers who’ve been pushed aside. The kind where you learn that leadership isn’t about who talks the most, but who listens the hardest.

Cleland believed in resilience, not theatrics. He believed in dignity, not division. And he believed that public service was a calling, not a career ladder. Those values shaped the staffers who worked for him, and Moon was one of them.

You can see that influence in the way Moon approaches public work today. The tone is quieter, steadier, more grounded. The focus leans toward workers, veterans, and the folks who don’t usually get a microphone. That’s classic Cleland, the belief that the measure of a leader is how many people they help, not how many people they impress.

In a political era full of noise, that old‑school Cleland style stands out. It’s not flashy. It’s not performative. It’s the kind of leadership Georgia used to be known for and the kind that still resonates with people who remember what public service looked like before everything turned into a show.

Cleland left a mark on Georgia. And whether you’re for Moon, against him, or still figuring him out, there’s no denying this: he’s walking into public life carrying a legacy that was built on service, sacrifice, and the belief that leadership means showing up for people when it counts.

That’s the Cleland stamp. And it doesn’t fade.

Two Georgia Heavyweights Just Dropped Their Boots on the Porch for Thurmond.

This morning, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reports Roy Barnes and Andrew Yound have thrown their full support and endorsement behind Michael Thurmond bid for Governor. 

When Andrew Young and Roy Barnes step into a race, it’s never just ceremonial. These are two of the most recognizable Democrats in modern Georgia politics, one a civil rights icon and Atlanta statesman, the other the last Democrat to win the Governor’s Mansion. Their endorsements don’t crown a nominee, but they do shift the ground under a campaign’s feet.

And for Michael Thurmond, they matter in three distinct arenas:  

The primary, rural Georgia, and a potential general election.

---

1. What It Means for the Democratic Primary

Young and Barnes speak to two pillars of the Democratic coalition that still matter in a primary:

- Older Black voters, who trust Andrew Young’s judgment and moral authority  

- Long‑time Democratic loyalists, who remember Roy Barnes as the last statewide Democratic governor  

Their support signals something simple but powerful:  

This is a serious campaign with real credibility.

Inside the party, endorsements like these open doors with donors, county chairs, activists, and local officials. They don’t guarantee votes, but they change the conversation about viability.

---

2. What It Means for His Push Into Rural Georgia

This is where the Barnes endorsement especially hits.

Roy Barnes still has name recognition in rural counties. He campaigned there, governed with them in mind, and remains one of the last Democrats rural voters remember personally. His backing gives Thurmond a level of familiarity and trust in places where Democrats have struggled to reconnect.

Andrew Young’s name carries weight everywhere even in small counties with small Black populations. His endorsement signals steadiness and seriousness.

Together, they help:

- Open doors with rural elected officials  

- Ease skepticism in counties Democrats haven’t carried in years  

- Strengthen turnout operations in places where every vote is hard‑earned  

It’s not magic. But it’s meaningful.

---

3. What It Means for a Potential General Election

Endorsements don’t win general elections.  

But they help shape the coalition needed to compete.

A. Credibility With Moderates and Independents

Barnes still resonates with older white moderates, rural Democrats who drifted right, and business‑minded independents. His support signals competence and stability.

B. Moral Authority With Black Voters

Andrew Young’s endorsement carries weight in Black churches and communities across the state, especially among older voters who still view him as a civil rights leader with unmatched credibility.

C. Institutional Strength

Both men have deep networks. Their backing can help:

- Attract donors  

- Bring in validators  

- Strengthen statewide infrastructure  

In a general election, that matters.

---

The Bottom Line

These endorsements don’t decide the race.  

But they do something just as important:

They signal that Thurmond’s campaign is credible, serious, and capable of building a broad Democratic Coalition,

the kind needed to win a primary and compete statewide.

They don’t guarantee victory.  

But they absolutely reshape the landscape.

Voices From the Amen Corner: Why South Georgia’s Black Voters Trust Steady Hands Like Thurmond and Moon

I visited a church last week down in rural Southeast Georgia where the dirt is red and the pines whisper when the wind shifts, Sunday mornings still mean something. Folks gather at a historic black church not just for worship, but for the conversations that happen afterward, the real ones, the ones that shape how people think about their communities and their future.

After service, the congregation drifted out into the felliwship hall behind the church. Kids ran around the fellowship hall. The men leaned against their trucks. The women huddled in the lobby.

At the center of the circle stood Miss Ruby, 82, who had lived through enough Georgia history to fill a library.

“People keep acting like Black folks in South Georgia don’t know politics,” she said, adjusting her hat. “Baby, we’ve been reading candidates longer than they’ve been reading polls.”

A few folks laughed, but everyone listened.

Next to her was Deacon Charles, a retired farmworker who’d spent decades in the peanut and timber fields.

“I don’t need somebody promising me the moon,” he said. “I need somebody who’s run something. Somebody who’s served. Somebody who understands rural Georgia ain’t a backdrop, it’s home.”

He paused, then added:

“That’s why folks down here pay attention when they hear names like Michael Thurmond. They know his story. They know he’s worked, served, led. They know he understands Georgia from the ground up.”

Miss Ruby nodded. “And that young man running for Labor Commissioner, Jason Moon. Folks like that. Somebody who’s worked with small businesses, understands jobs, understands what it means when a plant closes or a shift gets cut. That matters down here.”

Across the circle, Tameka, a school counselor, chimed in.

“People online think Black voters in the country are just ‘moderate’ or ‘old‑school.’ No. We’re practical. We know what works. We know who’s steady. We know who respects us enough to talk with us, not at us.”

She looked around the group.

“We like leaders who’ve actually done something. Leaders who understand farming, labor, schools, and small towns. Leaders who don’t treat us like a slogan.”

A few elders murmured “mm‑hmm” in agreement.

Then Jamal, 22, home from Albany State, spoke up.

“I used to think y’all were too cautious. But now I get it. Y’all ain’t scared, y’all just smart. You’ve seen what happens when folks talk big and deliver small.”

Miss Ruby smiled at him.

“Baby, we’ve lived through enough storms to know the difference between thunder and rain.”

The group fell quiet for a moment.

Finally, Deacon Charles said:

“Down here, we like Democrats who are steady. Who know the land. Who know the people. Who’ve worked real jobs, solved real problems, and don’t look down on us. Folks like Thurmond. Folks like Moon. Folks who understand rural Georgia because they’ve lived something.”

Miss Ruby tapped her cane on the dirt.

“And don’t let nobody tell you Black folks in South Georgia don’t think for ourselves. We’re the reason half these elections even get close.”

Soft laughter was heard through the group, the kind that comes from truth.

As everyone headed toward their cars and trucks, the pastor called out:

“Y’all remember, wisdom don’t make noise. It just shows up.”

And in that moment, it was clear:

Black voters in rural South Georgia weren’t confused.  

They weren’t passive.  

They weren’t waiting for someone to tell them what to believe.

They were choosing leaders who matched their values... steady hands, proven service, grounded judgment, the kind of leaders who fit South Georgia like a well‑worn pair of boots.

 

The Hidden Mike Thurmond Vote Everyone Is Missing

Every election cycle, we get a fresh round of polling that claims to show where the Democratic primary for Governor stands. And right now, those early numbers have Keisha Lance Bottoms sitting on a comfortable lead. But if you’ve watched Georgia Democratic primaries long enough, especially outside the Atlanta media bubble you know those toplines rarely tell the whole story.

There’s a quiet factor in this race that isn’t being measured yet: the Mike Thurmond vote.

Not the loud, online, hyper-engaged crowd. Not the folks who answer every poll. I’m talking about the voters who actually decide May primaries in this state, the ones who don’t show up in early surveys but absolutely show up at the ballot box.

And that gap between what polls capture and who actually votes may end up being the difference.

Rural and Small County Democrats Are Underrepresented in Early Polling

Anyone who has worked a rural county meeting or knocked doors in small towns knows this: these voters don’t always pick up the phone for pollsters, but they vote with consistency. They’re older, they’re loyal to the party, and they value a long record of public service. That’s a lane where Thurmond has historically performed well.

Name Recognition Isn’t the Same as Primary Strength

Bottoms’ early lead is driven heavily by name ID  something any former mayor of Atlanta

naturally carries. But name ID doesn’t automatically translate into:

- Trust  

- Coalition reach  

- Or the ability to win outside Metro Atlanta 

Primary voters, especially in May, tend to be more pragmatic and less swayed by celebrity or headlines.

Undecided Voters Are Shrinking and They aren’t Breaking Evenly

As undecided voters start making choices, they often gravitate toward candidates with broader appeal across regions and demographics. That’s where a candidate like Thurmond historically gains ground. Early polls rarely capture that late movement.

Primary Electorates Are Unique

The May Democratic primary electorate is not the same as the November general electorate. It skews:

- Older  

- More consistent  

- More policy‑focused  

- Less online  

These voters show up rain or shine, and they tend to reward candidates with long-standing relationships in their communities.

A Quiet Coalition Is Forming

Talk to Democrats across the state, rural organizers, suburban pragmatists, older Black voters, labor folks, education advocates and you’ll hear a similar theme: there’s interest in a candidate with a governing record, not just name recognition.

That coalition doesn’t make noise on social media, but it shows up when it counts.

The Bottom Line I'm trying to make is polls are a snapshot, not a prediction. And right now, they’re missing a key piece of the picture: the quiet but very real Mike Thurmond vote that doesn’t show up in early surveys but does show up in May.

As we move closer to the Democratic Primary, that undercounted coalition may be the factor that reshapes this race.

Conservative Democrats: The New Movement in Georgia?

This piece was written by Former Gubernatorial Candidate & Ray City Mayor Carl Camon

The mysterious smoke screen between Conservatives and Liberals is dissipating rapidly and both sides seem to be afraid of what will be revealed once the smoke is gone. Can a Democrat have conservative ideals? In the minds of some strong liberals, this just can't be possible. A new breed of conservative Democrats is on the horizon and I am proud to be amongst them. Many people are afraid of the unknown and feel threaten by what they don't understand, without even making an effort to confront their fears. Is it possible that a democratic candidate can be Pro-Life; a supporter of the Constitutional Amendment regarding the right to bear arms; a non-supporter of same-sex marriages/civil unions; a defender of those whom crimes are perpetrated against because of their sexual orientation; and an advocate for an employee's right to work and challenge unfair treatment on their jobs? I think that it is possible! However, those who are willing to take this kind of a stand are often ridiculed and are not too popular amongst extreme partisan supporters from both sides of the aisle.

If we all just stop for one minute and examine the sheer strength of such candidates, we would probably be amazed at the possibilities. In my opinion, most of those who have switched from being long-time Democratic Party supporters to becoming a Republican did so because their former party's message did not align with their beliefs. I would even venture to say that the beliefs of those who switched have not changed all that much, but the doctrine of the Democratic Party has changed significantly. This new breed of Conservative Democrats supports the ideals of people in general. This bold new approach can and will prove to be successful.

During my candidacy for Governor of Georgia, I learned several important things. One of the most important things that I learned was that Democrats and Republicans are from the same planet and we agree on more things than we disagree on. On my journey, I met concerned people who were democrats, republicans, libertarians and those who supported the Tea Party Movement. They were all tired of business as usual, and wanted a candidate who would do the right thing. However, most were just not willing and ready to accept the notion that there could be a candidate who would listen to the concerns of all the parties and who would work in an united effort to seriously address those concerns. In a Utopian world, the business as usual candidate would be a thing of the past. I would even go a step further and say that in our state, a business as usual candidate can still be a thing of the past, if we, the people, accept nothing less.

I am mindful of the fact that any time one voices his or her opinion and that opinion doesn't align with the status quo, massive efforts are often made to dilute the message and the destroy the messenger. There will be others who will do their level best to start a fire and put up a more dense smoke screen. One thing that Georgians can be reassured of though is the fact that this new Conservative Democrat Movement has a consistent message and an army of messengers who are not afraid to go into battle on behalf of the hardworking people of this great State of Georgia. I don't know what my political future holds, but from my past experiences I do know two things, and they are I finish what I start, regardless of the obstacles; and if I do decide to seek another political office, I will gladly carry the Conservative Democratic Banner. From day one, I'll remove that smoke screen and the people will be clear on where I stand.

Written By: Carl Camon - 2010 Gubernatorial Candidate

Majority-Minority Voting Districts and Their Role in Politics

Do two rights ever make a wrong? When it comes to two important aspects of voting rights, the answer may be yes.

The first is the use of majority-minority districts. These are political districts in which members of a racial minority make up an effective voting majority. This gives them the ability to participate and elect representatives of their own choosing, and has been the solution of choice in situations where there is, or could be, racial vote dilution.

But majority-minority districts give rise to a dynamic that undercuts the very goal they are designed to achieve. While they improve the ability of minority voters to elect a candidate of their choice in a particular district, they also cost their preferred political party other valuable seats in the legislature.

This, however, is less the fault of the majority-minority districts than of the second aspect of voting rights: the strict application of the one person, one vote standard.

Majority-minority districts have at least one very curious effect: they help Republicans. This is curious because minority voters, especially blacks, vote for Democrats in overwhelming numbers.

The theory goes like this. When creating a majority-minority political district, the additional minority voters must come from somewhere. That somewhere is adjoining districts, which are drained of their minority voters. Those voters, though, are not merely minority voters-they are also reliably Democratic voters. And this makes it more likely that the Republican candidates will prevail in those adjoining districts.

Would this actually happen in practice? It's well-documented that it already has. Now, after the 1990 census, scores of majority-minority districts were created in order to comply with the mandates of the Voting Rights Act. For example, thirteen additional majority-black Congressional districts were created. They, in turn, produced thirteen additional black representatives. Majority-minority districting did, indeed, lead to the election of the candidates of the minorities' choosing.

Unfortunately, a large number of studies of the 1992 and 1994 Congressional elections revealed that this additional representation came at a cost. As a result of majority-minority districting, Democrats lost at least ten seats to Republicans. When minority voters were drained out of adjoining districts, Republican majorities were the result.

Both parties apparently notice that majority-minority districts tend to help Republicans overall, and hurt Democrats overall. In the early 1990s, the Republican National Committee pushed for the creation of more black and Hispanic districts as part of a strategy to win additional seats in the House. And in states like here in Georgia, Democrats sought to reduce the number of safe minority districts in order to improve the party's chances overall. In doing so, both parties were acting contrary to their general positions on race-conscious lawmaking.

Minority voting rights advocates, then, was faced with a choice between pushing districting plans that increase the number of minority representatives and those that increase the number of Democratic representatives. This is a real dilemma, since, of the two major parties, Democrats are generally more sympathetic to minority interests (hence the overwhelming support).

And this raises several important questions. First, we've seen that, as a result of majority-minority districting, minority voters ,who overwhelming vote Democratic, end up with fewer Democratic Congressmen & women.

But remember, the key to fulfilling the mandates of the Voting Rights Act involves ensuring effective minority participation. Democrats would be helped but would they be helped unfairly?

I think the answer is a clear no! Given that most minority groups overwhelmingly support Democrats, it makes some sense that if minorities' ability to participate truly does improve, Democrats would benefit. At least it makes more sense than what's currently happening.

What does all of this mean for this and future elections? Well, given the margins enjoyed by Republicans in Congress and many state legislatures, it reminds us that some of those Republican victories may be a result of majority-minority districting, not any genuine change in the country's political views.

To see what I'm talking about, just keep an eye on the 2nd Congressional District, as well as the 8th Congressional District where Republicans would probably look one of their own, Austin Scott by making the 2nd more democratic friendly by packing more African-American Voters into Bishop's District, while making Scott's 8th more white & republican. This is called Gerrymandering & this has hurt democrats more than it has hurt republicans, on the congressional & local level as well.

President Obama: Drop Biden as running mate in 2012!

If Obama hopes to win key states again like he did in 2008, he ought to drop Biden as his running mate & go elsewhere.

President Obama will face a tough re-election in 2012 from whoever is the GOP nominee. States that he won in 2008 all of a sudden look as they might flip back to republican: North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, etc.

So the question needs to be asked, will the president be better off with a new running mate for 2012 instead of Joseph Biden, who brought nothing to the ticket in 2008?

YES!

Obama problem will be with Bluecollar, as well as Independent Swing voters that hail from the states mentioned above. I think is safe to say that he'll have the hispanic vote in his corner come 2012, but will he have independents? Bluecollar, White Working Class Voters?

That's the $64,000 question.

Replacing Biden with a more moderate/conservative democrat may go a long way in persuading those voters in those states to give the president another term in addition helping the president pickup a state that he won in 2008, or picking off one that his people have their sights on such as a Arizona, Georgia, or Missouri.

The president haven't always been in the good graces of the liberals despite passing the healthcare Law among other things, but who cares? Poke 'em in the eye one more time! Its all about winning now, forget about how the base feels. He's positioned himself in the middle now & if he stays there, he will walk back into the White House for another term.

Here are some names who would fit the VP role perfectly in 2012:

Barron Hill (D-Indiana) Hill, A Methodist comes from a state where Obama performed strongly in 2008. He lost re-election in the GOP wave election. A Methodist & conservative democrat, he "COULD" help Obama do well again in Indiana, as well as Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa & West Virginia.

John Barrow (D-Georgia). Don't Laugh! If the Obama campaign is dead serious about competing here in Georgia in 2012, then Barrow is the man you want to be your running mate. Barrow, a Baptist & graduate of UGA & Harvard University represents the 12th District in Eastern Georgia is very popular among his constituents with his annual "Barrow on the Corner" events which let citizens come out & talk & voice their opinions to the congressman. He is a moderately conservative democrat, being from a heavily rural district, he could help Obama here in Georgia as well as in Florida, North Carolina & in other states crucial to Obama

Health Shuler (D-North Carolina). Now Shuler is interesting. Only 40 Years old & a Southern Baptist he has made a name of himself already, by challenging Ultra-Liberal Nancy Pelosi for Minority Leader among other things. Shuler would no doubt boost Obama in the Tar Heel state, as well boost Obama in Virginia & other swing states.

Brian Schweitzer, Gov (D-Montana). A Catholic, moderate democrat, Schweitzer is the same as Georgia's John Barrow. Obama almost won Montana in 2008 & putting Schweitzer on the ticket with him will help Obama tremendously in the western states like Colorado, Nevada & upper midwest states like Wisconsin, Ohio & possibly in the southern states. He's pro-gun & enjoys favorability ratings in the 60% range.

Jim Marshall (D-Georgia). Boy, I can hear the liberals howl at the prospect of Jim Marshall as the running mate to Obama. Marshall lost last year in the wave election for his supposed 90% support of Nancy Pelosi which was a outright lie, but that's water under the bridge. Marshall is from the school of Sam Nunn & Zell Miller, which are rare in the democratic nowadays. Marshall, a conservative democrat hails from Macon, Ga & was congressman of the 8th district, as well as mayor of Macon. Marshall, a Catholic, is a Army Veteran, serving in Vietnam. Marshall brings both military & political expertise to the ticket & would probably be stronger than John Barrow in Georgia. He would boost Obama in the south, as well in the midwestern states like Ohio, Indiana as well as West Virginia. Marshall is a potential candidate for governor of Georgia in 2014.

These are some of the names that stood out, but there are others who would boost Obama's electability next year. Biden is a solid person, but doesn't bring enough to the table as far as appeal to help offset some of Obama's liberal stances & views

Here they Come! The New Guard of Black Georgia Democrats

The ones that will have the ability to run statewide one day if he/she chooses to do so.

The old guard liberal black democrats like State Rep Tyrone Brooks, State Senator Robert Brown, State Senator Vincent Fort & others are likely, but slowly to be replaced with the likes of moderate/conservative black democrats like Quentin Howell (D-Milledgeville), Carl Camon (D-Ray City) both who ran for office back in 2010 (Howell for State Rep, Camon for governor).

And others like RJ Hadley (D-Conyers), who I view more as a moderate progressive, who is now Vice-Chairman of County Parties at the Georgia Democratic Party, was a candidate for the US Senate in 2010 was dissed by the Old Guard when he was starting his political career. Fenika Miller (D-Warner Robins), despite having a progressive streak is also a young moderate who ran for office as well in 2010.

Others like Shawn James, a conservative democrat from Clayton County, Freddy Grimsley, a centrist democrat from Albany, Kimberly Alexander, a centrist democrat from Douglas County, State Senator Hardie Davis (D-Augusta) is a prime example of a centrist oriented Black Democrat, are all part of the new guard that will in some shape or form will represent the new African-American Democrat in Georgia who will be more moderate or conservative on some key issues that will enable them to appeal to a more cross section of the population instead of just one group of people.

If the Old Guard is afraid to reach back and mentor the next generation that wants to be in this realm of electoral politics ... that younger generation is going to elbow them in the face, and they're going to find themselves on the sideline as the next generation takes their seats away.

Look at Quentin Howell (D-Milledgeville) for example: A conservative democrat, he is a entrepreneur, he is a successful Small Business Owner (Howell’s Medical Equipment & Supply) , did some time in the US Navy & who also hosts the largest radio talk show in Middle Georgia & is a Christian Conservative, someone who I think will win if he chooses to run again in 2012, preferably for the State Senate. (This just me talking, lol!!!). You see, this is the new face of Georgia Politics, the new guard of Black Democrats in this state.

The Old Guard, many of them grew during the MLK Generation. But too many of them, in my opinion have stopped reaching back to mentor the next generation. And their successors are desperately needed as role models for black youth who drop out of school and commit crimes at rates far above their proportion of the population.

It's time for new blood. Dems need fresh energy and fresh ideas. The day has come when black Democrats can win over white voters based on what they stand for and what they can accomplish. Be on the lookout for these up & coming democrats in Georgia Politics

Gerrymandering Hurts Potential Black Candidates with Aspirations for Higher Office Here in Georgia.

YES!!!!!!!!!


The idea of creating majority-minority districts came from the thought that blacks (or other minorities) would have a better chance of being elected and thus be better represented in a district where the majority of the voters in the district are black. The 4th District is a prime example where more than 60% of the voters are African American. In SW Georgia, Sanford Bishop district has changed numerous times. Bishop first won the 2nd when it was a majority white district. In the other two districts, the 4th & 13th, those districts have over 50% African American Population. So does that prove the system works?

Yes and no. Yes, Rep. John Lewis, Hank Johnson & David Scott will get re-elected in 2012 and every year after and chances are when they retire a black Democrat will succeed them. Sanford Bishop's 2nd District has a great shot of being represented by a white democrat once he retires from office more so than the other more liberal districts in the state. But, could a Scott, Johnson, Lewis ever win statewide? No. They are simply too liberal. They are fine for their liberal, cut out district which they need to be, but that would not fly in the state as a whole. Before I thought Bishop had best chance of all of the black Georgia Democrats to win statewide because he represented a rural district in which he got a substantial number of white votes, but all that went out the window with his support for the unpopular Heathcare Bill & his close ties to President Obama. Each with the exception of Bishop can win re-election without a single white vote


The problem with them (xcept Bishop) is that their districts are not representative of the state as a whole because of the deliberate elimination of all those who are not traditional liberal, democratic voters. The same point could be made for most districts in the state House and state Senate. If African-Americans from the state legislature want to win a statewide election, they are simply going to have to moderate their positions on a host of issues. Of course, they risk losing the black vote when doing so, but that's a risk they are going to have to take.

FEAR: Why the GOP needs it & Why they can't function without it!

Fear is a tool that is used far too often in politics. Both major parties use fear from time to time, but it seems that Republicans use fear way too often as a tool to manipulate us, and more importantly, they lie about what to fear.

They want you to fear the foreign government that is going to come here and kill us. Now this is something that we should always be mindful of as a nation, but we shouldn’t be making widespread lies to strike fear into the hearts of Americans so that we can invade and occupy a nation for a decade that hasn’t done anything to us. They go on TV and tell you that this guy has biological weapons and this guy has nukes and if you don’t elect us, these evil doers will come to your home town and erase it from the map. They used this fear tool so effectively in 2004 & again in 2010.

They want you to fear the Muslims even though they say Islam is not a religion of hate. They talk about Islamic Extremists every chance they get. Do they ever call any other extremist group or terrorist organization by their religion the way they do with Muslims? No. They want to keep making sure that you hear “Muslim” or “Islamic” every time something bad happens to justify their actions in the middle east. They never once referred to Tim McVeigh as a “Christian Terrorist” even though he said after the bombings that he was doing “Gods work”. They never once referred to Dr Tillers murderer as a “Christian Extremist” even though the only reason he murdered Dr Tiller was because of a difference in religious beliefs & plus he was doing abortions. The other reason the want you afraid of Islam and Muslims directly leads to the next thing they want you to fear…..President Obama. Now Im not defending all the president has done, some things I agree with him on, some things I do not agree with, but this whole thing about fearing the president is getiing old & its getting old fast.

They constantly try to tie Obama with Islam because if they already have you afraid of Muslims, and they get you to believe Obama is a Muslim, (even with all of the evidence that he is no muslim, he a christian) then you will naturally fear him. What amazes me about the fear tools they use when it comes to the President is that they equate him to a Muslim because they know they have you all ginned up on Islam, but then they say he’s a Communist or a Marxist.

How many Muslim KGB agents do you ever recall hearing about? They, when it comes to Obama, want you to fear any number of things that aren’t true.

Fear that he’s a Muslim. Not true!

Fear that he’s a Communist. Not true!

Fear that he will take your guns away. (Well, I'm still skeptical about that when it comes to the president).

Fear that he will tax you into the poor house. Not true! (Although there's no doubt that he wants to raise taxes in order to help pay for the controversial Healthcare Legislation & pay down this debt & deficit).

Fear that he will crush small businesses with his policies. Not true!

But in the Republican world, it doesn’t matter if its true or not. All that matters is if they can get you to fear it, because if they can get you afraid of it, you will vote against it. And if you vote against it, they will have the power.

They want you to fear the economy. How many times does Glenn Beck push gold right after telling you that the Democratic government is destroying the dollar and your bank accounts will be worth nothing in the very near future? They tell you the economy is going to completely collapse and that you need gold as a purchasing tool, and an emergency seed stash to plant a garden for when the supermarket shelves will be bare. The fear is based on the one thing everyone wants and needs…money. The ironic part is that while Glenn Beck is telling you the economy is collapsing, he is getting richer… off of fear. And I used to like & watch Glenn Beck, when he was on CNN Headline News before going to Fox where he has gone off the deep end, I guess to get ratings & to cater to the fringe of the GOP.

They want you to fear that which isn’t like them… homosexuals, women who have thoughts of their own and anyone who doesn’t long for the good old days of the 1950s. They want you to fear that if a homosexual couple gets married, then your marriage won’t mean anything. They want you to fear that if homosexuals adopt kids, then those kids will be homosexual too. Now I don't support those of the same sex getting married, nor civil unions, but there are better things they need to be doing then to ostracize the Gay & Lesbian Community. They want you to fear a woman’s right to choose, and to be honest with you, I can’t figure out why. Regardless what people like myself who are pro-life think, its a woman's right! Its her body & only she knows what's right her, not us. They want you to fear anyone who doesn’t think like you because apparently the last 400 years hasn’t shown them that different groups of people that do not have anything in common other than a desire to be free can come together to live in peace and prosperity.

They want to use fear to keep you from voting against them. They want you to believe that they have all of the answers and the Democrats do not so you should fear the Democrats. Democrats use fear as well. The difference between what Democrats tell you to fear and what Republicans tell you to fear is that the fear the Democrats speak of is real. Democrats want you to fear putting a party back in power that took a record surplus and turned it into a record deficit, led us into the worst recession in 80 years and was the cause of millions of jobs being lost in this country.

That is real fear when it comes to the economy.

Democrats want you to fear putting a party back in control that wages war for its friends to be able to profit, costing thousands of American lives and billions of American dollars. Think if the GOP where to win back the senate in 2012, along with the White House, LORD HAVE MERCY! That’s is real fear when it comes to foreign policy. Democrats want you to fear putting a party back in power that oppresses homosexuals, women and minorities. That’s real fear on the domestic front, not that the President is this Muslim Communist born in Kenya, which the birthers want you to believe, which is untrue, with radical Christian views on social justice. Which, by the way, doesn’t make sense at all.

Don’t buy the fear the Republicans are peddling. Now let me say, all republicans do not use this tactic. I have friends who are republicans who are more centrist-oriented & they don't say or do the things some republicans love to do. But back to what I was saying, they want you to be afraid so you will vote them back into power. The real fear that Americans should be feeling is about returning to the ineffective, destructive policies and actions of the last 8 years… or even worse… if the next wave of Republicans are even more right wing than the last bunch that just got elected last year. Those would be known as the Teapartiers… and that is what I really fear.

There was a fear that the country was going to veer to the hard left after the 2008 elections, now there is a fear that a select group of republicans are trying to veer the country off to the far -right & that's something that doesn't need to happen. The U.S have always been a center/center-right country. No need to cater to the extremes of both parties.

Race to Defeat: Simple Subtraction of Down State Democrats

Once, not so long ago, they roamed in great herds. They controlled the landscape, and the alpha males among them ruled with certainty and swagger. But now, after generations of dominance, they've been reduced to endangered species and their natural enemies have marked them for extinction.

There are 0 White Senate Democrats outside of the Metro Area
There are only 7 White Rural House Democrats left out of 65 Democrats in the house.

Where'd all the white Democrats go?

What's it all mean? I don't know; go ask a wise man. I'm just doing math. But it seems a party's claim to diversity can't be helped when its roster of legislators is increasingly low on one of the state's major demographics : white people!

Do Georgia Democrats have to crank up a white outreach program (maybe at the local Rodeo or Gun Shows)?

Of course they do!

You can't form a party and write off the white vote. That's no way to come back into power!

I see the dwindling white Democratic caucus as further certification that when, and if, Georgia Democrats return to power (or at least relevance) "it's not going to be your granddaddy's Democratic Party. Not only will it be majority minority (mostly Black) it will be "predominantly minority. Any Democratic resurgence could be 10 to 15 years away if Black voter turnout doesn't improve.

Also the lack of highly visible white Democrats hurts the party's effort to lure white folks back into the fold. People do respond best to people that look like them. They feel good about casting a vote for somebody who looks like them, THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE!

But the main reason democrats are in such dire straits is due to Racial gerrymandering.

Democrats have lost as many seats here in the because of majority black redistricting." Remember when Floyd Griffin forst won a seat to the State Senate from a majority-white district, defeating the incumbent democrat Wilbur Baugh back in 1992.

Those days are long gone..........for now!

But no more. What enabled record numbers of blacks to win election to the House, also planted the seeds for their political disenfranchisement. Congressional redistricting after the 1990 Census saw federal courts and state lawmakers create new majority black districts, mainly by snatching black voters from existing districts and stuffing them into new ones. This essentially guaranteed the election of black Democrats to the new seats, but it also "whitened" neighboring districts and made them more Republican.

Redistricting after the census lifted the number of blacks elected to the General Assembly here in the state. There's no doubt that race-driven redistricting was a windfall to the GOP in Georgia, which helped them make significant gains here in the peach state. The GOP worked in cahoots with civil rights leaders such as State Rep Tyrone Brooks (D-Atlanta) to create majority black districts. The Republican appointees in the Bush administration's Justice Department regularly harassed state reapportionment committees and forced them to set aside special districts for blacks.

These redistricting schemes ultimately stem from the Voting Rights Act, first passed in 1965 to ensure black voters full participation in electoral politics--something they had been denied, especially in the South. But over the past 30 years it has slowly transformed into something quite different: A mechanism that not only guarantees equal access to the ballot box for blacks, but also virtually requires racially proportionate election outcomes. Democrats have aided and abetted this development, essentially underwriting the GOP's cynical exploitation of their politically foolish act. They will now pay for it with years in the wilderness.

A more liberal Democratic Party.............. Blacks now mostly control majority of the seats held by Democrats in the State House & the State Senate. Many of them are on the far-left fringes of the party, while most are just plain liberal. With the exception of a handful, the majority of the black legislators are basically seat warmers, having no influence in debates, legislation, etc.

Without white democrats who are more in the center, tilting toward the reight, the party will have a tough row to hoe if it ever want to really get back in the ballgame anytime soon.