The Supreme Court Shook the South. Michael Thurmond Is the Steady Hand Georgia Needs.

Every now and then, Georgia hits a crossroads big enough that you can feel it in your bones. Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision was one of those moments. It didn’t just shake Louisiana. It sent a tremor straight through every state that’s been relying on the Voting Rights Act to keep representation fair, stable, and intact. And if you think Georgia is somehow insulated from that, you haven’t been paying attention.

We’re staring down a political landscape where long‑protected districts could be rewritten, rural communities could lose what little voice they have left, and the gap between metro Georgia and the rest of the state keeps stretching wider. This isn’t a season for guesswork or slogans. This is a season for competence.

And that’s why so many people are looking at Michael Thurmond.

Not because of party labels.  

Not because of national noise.  

Not because of who he’s against.  

But because of what he’s actually done and what he knows how to do.

Georgia doesn’t need another candidate running on vibes and cable‑news talking points. Georgia needs a steady hand at the wheel, someone who understands state government from the inside out, someone who can walk into a crisis and not have to ask where the light switches are.

This election has to be about more than being anti‑Trump. That’s not a governing philosophy. That’s not a plan for rural hospitals, or struggling school districts, or farmers who’ve been hanging on by their fingernails. It doesn’t fix a single thing for the blue‑collar families who’ve been carrying this state on their backs.

The real question  the only question that matters — is this:

Who has the ideas, the experience, and the credibility to fix what’s breaking Georgia?

Look at the list:

- Agriculture — the backbone of our state economy  

- Education — especially in the counties that get ignored until election season  

- Healthcare — where closures have become a grim routine  

- Working‑class families — the folks who don’t get press conferences, but keep the lights on  

When you run down that list, one name keeps coming up in conversations across the state: Michael Thurmond.

He’s trusted.  

He’s respected.  

He’s got no scandals, no skeletons, no drama.  

Just a record of service and a reputation for competence.

In a moment this volatil... legally, politically, and culturally, Georgia doesn’t need a showhorse. Georgia needs a workhorse who knows how to build consensus, calm the waters, and get things done.

Some people say every election is the most important one of our lifetime. Maybe so. But this one feels different. This one feels like a hinge — the kind history swings on.

And if Georgia wants stability, solutions, and a leader who understands the stakes, a lot of folks believe Michael Thurmond fits the moment.

This is his time.

If Treutlen County Can See Thurmond’s Strength, What’s Wrong With the Democrats Who Can’t?

Every election cycle in Georgia comes with its own set of myths, wishful thinking, and political fairy tales. But there’s one quiet truth floating around this state that cuts through all the noise: there are Republicans who do not want to see Michael Thurmond standing across from them in a General Election.

They know his resume.  

They know his reputation.  

They know the kind of voters who respect him.  

They know the coalition he can build without breaking a sweat.

What struck me yesterday in Treutlen County wasn’t the scenery  it was the conversations. Conservative‑leaning voters, folks who haven’t voted for a Democrat in years, were saying out loud that Michael Thurmond is a strong candidate and someone they could see themselves backing for Governor. That’s not spin. That’s not theory. That’s what people on the ground are saying.

When rural, conservative‑leaning voters in a place like Treutlen County start talking like that, it tells you something about the political landscape that some Democrats still refuse to acknowledge.

Again, th

at’s not coming from Democrats hyping their own candidate.  That’s coming from Republicans who’ve watched him for years and understand exactly how dangerous a broad‑appeal candidate can be in a statewide race. That's what I heard yesterday in Laurens County.

But here’s the twist and it’s the part that makes this whole thing feel like deja vu:

Some Democrats can’t see what their opponents already understand.

Instead of rallying behind the candidate with the widest reach, the deepest credibility, and the clearest path to winning in November, a chunk of the party is chasing butterflies. They want someone who makes them feel inspired, emotional, or electrified.... even if that candidate can’t win statewide.

It’s the same pattern that’s cost Democrats race after race in Georgia:

Choosing vibes over victory.  

Choosing feelings over fundamentals.  

Choosing inspiration over electability.

Some Democrats would rather lose with a candidate who gives them goosebumps than win with a candidate who can actually pull votes from rural counties, suburban enclaves, and urban cores all at once.

One group is thinking about November.  

The other is thinking about how a candidate makes them feel in March.

And that’s the divide  the one that keeps showing up every cycle, the one that keeps handing winnable races to the other side, the one that frustrates the voters who actually want to win instead of just feeling good about losing.

The question for Democrats isn’t complicated:

Do you want a candidate who excites a room,  

or a candidate who can win a state?

Because Republicans already know which one they’d rather not face.  The only question is whether Democrats will figure it out before the ballots are cast.

The Party Comes First. Rural Georgia Comes Last

Take a drive through rural Georgia and you’ll see the truth our politicians hope you’re too polite to say: we’ve been neglected, ignored, and flat‑out taken for granted.

The backroads tell the story.  

Not the campaign mailers.  

Not the stump speeches.  

Not the party talking points.

The actual Georgia, the one outside the metro glow  is full of shuttered hospitals, dying downtowns, underfunded schools, and communities surviving on grit because their elected officials sure aren’t fighting for them.

And here’s the part folks don’t like to say out loud:  

Most of the people representing rural Georgia come from one party, and they’ve been coasting on loyalty instead of delivering results.

For years, rural voters showed up.  

They voted the same way.  

They trusted the same names.  

They believed the promises.

But loyalty without accountability turns into exploitation.  

And that’s exactly what’s happened.

At some point, rural Georgians are going to have to look in the mirror and ask the question that’s been hanging in the air for a decade:

Do these representatives and state senators actually give a damn about us or are they just protecting their party and their seat?

Because the evidence is sitting right in front of us:

- Hospitals closed while lawmakers argued about everything except healthcare.  

- Broadband “expansion” that somehow never reaches the dirt roads where people actually live.  

- Farmers squeezed while politicians pose for photos in fields they don’t understand.  

- Schools scraping by while the legislature pats itself on the back for “record budgets.”  

- Local communities losing control to decisions made by people who don’t know the first thing about them.

That’s not representation.  

That’s abandonment dressed up as leadership.

And rural Georgians aren’t stupid.  

They see it.  

They feel it.  

They live with the consequences every single day.

The coming‑to‑Jesus moment is unavoidable now.  

Not partisan.  

Not ideological.  

Just real.

Who is actually fighting for rural Georgia and who is hiding behind a party label while our communities fall apart?

When rural voters start demanding answers to that question and stop rewarding politicians who treat them like a guaranteed vote

the entire political landscape of this state will shift.

And maybe then, rural Georgia will finally get the respect, investment, and representation it’s been owed for far too long.

The Men in Steel‑Toes and Calloused Hands — Tired of Being Treated Like Background Noise

Every election cycle, consultants and candidates trot out the same buzzwords: “middle class,” “working families,” “jobs of tomorrow.” But if you’ve spent any time in real Georgia, not the Atlanta studios, not the D.C. think tanks, but the warehouses, the job sites, the break rooms, the logging yards, the ports, and the plant floors you know exactly who gets left out of the conversation.

Blue‑collar voters.  

Not the caricatures. Not the stereotypes.  

The real ones.

The young HVAC apprentice in Pooler.  

The Black warehouse supervisor in Cordele.  

The Latino welder in Gainesville.  

The CNA in Bainbridge  

The trucker in Greensboro  

The correctional officer in Telfair County.  

The line cook in Valdosta.  

The forklift operator in Fort Valley  

These are the people who keep Georgia running, and yet they’re the ones politics forgets first.

But this year feels different. Not because of slogans or speeches, but because a slate of Democratic candidates Michael Thurmond for Governor, Michael McCord in GA‑01, Shawn Harris in GA‑14, Justin Lucas in GA‑12, and Jason Moon for Labor Commissioner come from the kind of lived experience that blue‑collar voters recognize instantly.

They don’t have to pretend to understand working‑class life.  

They’ve lived it.

---

The Blue‑Collar Voters Nobody Talks To

1. Young Tradesmen and Working‑Class Millennials

These are the folks who skipped the college‑debt treadmill and went straight into the trades. They’re up before dawn, home after dark, and invisible to most campaigns.

2. Non‑White Working‑Class Voters

Black, Latino, Asian, and immigrant workers who get treated like base voters instead of real people with real economic frustrations.

3. Rural and Exurban Laborers

Mechanics, correctional officers, plant workers, truckers, warehouse crews folks who feel ignored by Democrats and taken for granted by Republicans.

4. “Invisible Industry” Workers

Home health aides, CNAs, janitors, line cooks, hospitality workers, gig drivers. Essential workers who rarely hear their names spoken from a podium.

5. Former Union and De‑Industrialized Workers

People who watched factories close, jobs disappear, and promises evaporate.

These voters aren’t unreachable. They’re just tired of being ignored.

---

Why This Slate of Candidates Connects With Them

Let’s be clear: this isn’t about comparing candidates. It’s about explaining why some voters believe this group of Democrats speaks naturally to the people politics usually overlooks.

Michael Thurmond — Governor

Thurmond’s life story is working‑class Georgia. He talks about work like someone who’s done it, not studied it. He’s spent decades building trust across rural, urban, and suburban communities. Some voters believe his candidacy could bring blue‑collar Georgians—especially rural and non‑white working‑class men—back into the picture.

Michael McCord — GA‑01

Down in the First District, McCord’s background resonates with the port workers, logistics crews, and military families who define the region. He understands the grind of coastal Georgia because he’s lived it.

Shawn Harris — GA‑14

In the northwest corner of the state, Harris speaks the language of working‑class voters who feel forgotten by both parties. He knows the culture, the struggles, and the pride of rural Georgia.

Justin Lucas — GA‑8

Lucas comes from the same world as the plant workers, farmers, and tradesmen who dominate the 8th District. His story mirrors theirs, and that matters.

Jason Moon — Labor Commissioner

Moon is the kind of candidate who doesn’t need a briefing book to understand labor issues. He’s lived the blue‑collar life, and voters can tell. Some believe he could be the first statewide Democrat in years to break through the rural firewall because he speaks directly to the people who punch a clock.

---

Why This Matters for Georgia’s Future

Georgia’s political destiny won’t be shaped by pundits or party insiders. It’ll be shaped by the people who:

- clock in early  

- clock out late  

- raise families on tight margins  

- keep the lights on, the roads paved, the goods moving, and the state functioning  

These voters don’t want culture‑war theatrics.  

They want respect, stability, and opportunity.

And this slate of candidates...Thurmond, McCord, Harris, Lucas, and Moon comes from the kind of backgrounds that make blue‑collar voters lean in instead of tuning out.

Not because of party.  

Not because of ideology.  

But because they see themselves reflected for once.

Blue‑collar voters aren’t disappearing. They’re not unreachable. They’re not apathetic. They’re just waiting for someone who talks to them like adults, respects their work, and understands their world.

This year, some Georgians believe they finally have a group of candidates who can do exactly that.

If Georgia is going to move forward, it’ll be because the people who built this state.and keep it running every day finally get a seat at the table again.

Black Men Ain’t Your Damn Afterthought

Let’s stop sugarcoating it.  

In American politics, the Black male voter is the most disrespected, overlooked, and mishandled vote in the whole damn system. Everybody wants the numbers, nobody wants the conversation, and both parties act like Black men are supposed to just “show up” out of tradition or guilt.

That era is dead.

For years, the Democratic Party has treated Black men like the back‑of‑the‑line voters, the ones you call last, listen to least, and blame first when turnout dips. And while that’s been happening, the GOP has been circling like a hawk, not because they suddenly understand Black men, but because they see an opening big enough to drive a tractor through.

And here’s the part the national pundits keep missing:

In Georgia, Black men aren’t a side note.  

They’re the deciding note.

This voting bloc will shape the Democratic primary whether anybody wants to admit it or not. If Black men show up, the race tilts one way. If they stay home, it tilts another. It’s that simple. The numbers don’t lie, even if the parties do.

Black men aren’t leaving anybody.  

They’re tired of being ignored, talked down to, and treated like political spare parts.

And in a state as tight as Georgia where every vote is a knife‑edge,

the most disrespected vote in America might just be the one that decides who walks out of the Democratic primary alive. 

The Back Roads Didn’t Turn Red. Democrats Left Them for Dead.

Georgia Democrats Didn’t Lose Rural Voters — They Abandoned Them.

Since 1968, the Republican Party has pulled off one of the most effective political realignments in modern American history. They convinced rural white men that they, not the Democratic Party, were the true defenders of their values even as Republican economic policies hollowed out the very communities those voters call home.

They did it through cultural identity.  

Guns.  

Symbolism.  

Grievance.  

A sense of “us versus them.”

And for many rural white men, that message stuck.

But it wasn’t always this way.

From FDR through Jimmy Carter, Democrats were the party of the farmer, the mill worker, the mechanic, the teacher, the factory hand, the blue‑collar backbone of rural America. Even in the 1990s, Bill Clinton managed to bring many of those voters back after the party drifted culturally left in the 1980s.

Today, with the MAGA movement gripping a large share of white male voters, the question is whether Democrats have the will and the courage to put their big‑boy britches on and make a serious play for voters who were once conservative Democrats, Reagan Democrats, or part of the Obama 2008 coalition

To understand the challenge, you have to look at Georgia.

The Collapse of the Old Georgia Democratic Coalition

For decades, Georgia Democrats held together a powerful coalition:  

Rural white Democrats + urban Black Democrats.

That coalition was held together by one man more than any other House Speaker Tom Murphy, the iron horse of Bremen.

Murphy understood rural Georgia. He understood its culture, its pride, its stubbornness, and its sense of identity. As long as he was in power, the coalition held.

But when Murphy lost in 2002, the entire structure collapsed like a house of cards.

    

That same year, Roy Barnes a popular incumbent was defeated in a stunning upset. The spark? His decision to change the state flag, which for many rural white Georgians was a cultural symbol tied to heritage and defiance. That moment accelerated a political migration already underway. 

After 2005, Democrats didn’t just lose rural Georgia  they walked away from it.  

No backup plan.  

No long‑term strategy.  

No investment.  

The once‑dominant Georgia Democratic Party became a shell of itself, increasingly mirroring the national party in tone and style. That shift further alienated moderate and conservative Democrats who had been the backbone of rural support.

Meanwhile, Republicans filled the vacuum with cultural messaging that resonated deeply in rural communities.

---

Twenty‑Five Years Later: Georgia Has Changed, But the Math Hasn’t

Georgia today is not the Georgia of 2002.  

It’s younger, more diverse, more suburban, and more competitive.

But here’s the truth:  

Democrats cannot win statewide consistently without improving in rural Georgia.

Two things must happen:

1. Democrats must re‑engage rural white voters instead of running from them.

Not to win them outright, that’s not realistic in the short term  but to lose them by less.  

A shift from 80–20 to 70–30 in rural counties can flip statewide races.

2. Democrats must activate the 600,000 to 800,000 unregistered minority voters in Georgia.

This is the other half of the equation.  

You can’t build a statewide majority without both:

- Rebuilding rural margins, and  

- Maximizing urban and suburban turnout.

One without the other is a losing formula.

---

Where Do Michael Thurmond and Jason Moon Fit Into This?

When people talk about Democrats who could help reopen the rural door, two names often come up: Michael Thurmond and Jason Moon. Not as magic bullets, but as examples of the kind of candidates who can speak across cultural lines.

---

Michael Thurmond: The Steady Hand With Cross‑Cultural Reach

Observers often point out that Thurmond carries something rare in modern politics:  

credibility in both rural and urban Georgia.

People in rural counties know him from his decades of work in labor, education, and workforce development. He talks about work, wages, and opportunity not national culture‑war noise. Older rural voters respect his longevity and remember the era when Democrats still dominated Georgia politics.

He’s the kind of Democrat who can soften resistance, rebuild trust, and cut into the rural margins that have been bleeding for two decades.

Not flip rural Georgia but make it competitive enough to matter.

---

Jason Moon: The Potential Breakthrough With Working‑Class Men

Moon is often described differently not as the old‑school bridge, but as the new‑school breakthrough.

His background and tone resonate with working‑class men who often feel ignored by the party. He presents a culturally familiar profile without trying to imitate rural voters or talk down to them. He represents generational change, and he speaks in a way that feels grounded, not scripted.

He’s the kind of candidate who could connect with voters Democrats haven’t reached in years, especially men who respond to authenticity, work ethic, and straight talk.

---

Why These Two Matter

Georgia Democrats need two things at once:

- a statewide figure who can reopen the conversation in rural Georgia, and  

- down‑ballot candidates who can walk through the door once it’s cracked open.

In that framework:

- Thurmond is the steady hand who can reduce the rural deficit.  

- Moon is the fresh voice who can break through with voters the party hasn’t reached in a generation.

Together, they represent two different but complementary paths into rural Georgia.

---

The Path Forward

If Democrats want to compete again at the state level, they must:

- show up in rural communities consistently  

- speak plainly about work, wages, hospitals, and infrastructure  

- respect rural identity instead of avoiding it  

- rebuild trust that was lost over decades  

- invest in long‑term organizing, not election‑year parachuting  

- expand the electorate by registering and mobilizing minority voters  

This isn’t a one‑cycle project.  

It’s a generational one.

But the alternative is simple:  

Stay in the wilderness.

Red Clay Black and White Rednecks: The Rural Georgia Voters Everyone Gets Wrong

Down in places like Baxley, Soperton, Hazlehurst, and over toward Swainsboro and Butler, the word “redneck” doesn’t land the way outsiders think it does. It’s not a slur. It’s a lifestyle. A work ethic. A way of being raised.

And in rural Georgia, there are white rednecks and Black rednecks, folks who grew up the same way even if their histories took different roads.

They hunt the same woods.  

They fish the same ponds.  

They fix their own tractors because the nearest dealership is 40 miles away.  

They know the difference between a good rain and a bad one just by smelling the air.

They’re not caricatures.  

They’re not punchlines.  

They’re the backbone of half the counties south of Macon.

But every election season, the national media swoops in like they’ve discovered a new species. They talk about “rural whites” like they’re monolithic. They talk about “Black rural voters” like they’re an afterthought. They never talk about the cultural overlap, the shared grit, the shared frustrations, the shared sense that Atlanta and Washington don’t see them unless they need something.

Take Treutlen County.  

Take Wheeler County

Take Long County.  

Take the backroads between Vidalia and Americus.

You’ll find white rednecks who grew up on pulpwood money and Black rednecks who grew up on farm labor and church kitchens and both will tell you the same thing:

“Don’t come down here talking slick. Show me something real.”

They don’t vote based on hashtags.  

They don’t vote based on yard signs.  

They vote based on trust, consistency, and who shows up when the cameras aren’t around.

In a primary, rural Georgia rednecks... Black and white  look for:

- someone who talks plain  

- someone who understands rural economics  

- someone who respects their culture  

- someone who doesn’t act like rural Georgia is a museum exhibit  

They don’t care about polished speeches.  

They care about whether you know what a chicken house smells like in July.

In the general election, the split shows up but not the way outsiders think.

White rural voters lean one way.  

Black rural voters lean another.  

But both groups share the same complaints:

- hospitals closing  

- grocery stores disappearing  

- roads crumbling  

- kids leaving because there’s nothing to stay for  

And here’s the twist:  

When a candidate, any candidate actually invests in these communities, listens to them, and treats them like partners instead of props, the margins shift. Not always dramatically, but enough to matter in a state where elections are decided by a few thousand votes.

Black and white rednecks in rural Georgia aren’t enemies.  

They’re neighbors.  

They’re coworkers.  

They’re kin through culture if not through blood.

They argue politics like they argue football... loud, stubborn, but with a mutual understanding that tomorrow they’ll still be borrowing each other’s tools.

And deep down, they want the same thing:

A Georgia that doesn’t forget about the counties with more pine trees than people.

A Georgia where their kids don’t have to leave to make a living.

A Georgia where their voice matters as much as anyone else’s.

They don’t vote based on labels.  

They vote based on respect.

And in a state as tight as Georgia, the folks in the red clay, Black and white  can change the whole story when someone finally talks to them like they matter.

The Rural Wall has helped Georgia Republicans dominate statewide elections for years. For Dems, it’s time to change that.

Democrats don’t get elected in places like ruby red Atkinson County for example. It’s important to show that yes democrats are there, they are present, and they ain’t scared of no one. It's time to start chipping away at that red wall in rural Georgia that’s holding them back right now. As they begin their 2024, and then 2026 campaigns for state offices from governor to Labor Commissioner, Democrats know they can count on support in Georgia's fast-growing cities. They see increasing their share of votes in rural counties, which have long titled heavily Republican going back to the early 2000s, as a key part of their strategy to win statewide office for the first time in two decades.

Yeah I know places like Dodge County ain’t gonna turn blue any time soon, but if they can even get their Democratic base out 5 more percent and this is true for every rural county, if rural counties went 5 more percent towards any Democrat running for office, that’s really gonna help out, and that’s what’s going to push us over the edge, say in 2026.

Statewide leaders here in Georgia, both parties, tend to focus only on five or six big counties because you do the math and you think that’s where all the votes are. But I just don’t think that’s right.

We all know how big of a state Georgia is, and I know there was no question that running more than once was absolutely essential to success, however courting rural voters is not something the state Democratic Party has embraced in the past decade. 

There’s a big difference between losing a rural county 70-30 and losing it 55-45, and that’s completely acceptable. But you just can’t keep getting creamed in the rural counties and expect you’re going to win anything statewide. They’re going to have to put a lot more energy and time into figuring out how to talk to those voters in such a way they can hear them.

One thing Democrats need to realize....There’s a pretty good bullsh** detector out in the rural areas and they’ll see through that if you’re not genuine to yourself. Just putting on your cowboy boots and coming out here once or twice is not going to get you the kind of votes you need. The thing I think that makes the difference is it’s not just showing up at campaign time; it’s showing up year after year after year and maintaining those relationships.

Fixed Income Voters Matter Too!

Fixed Income voters, primarily retirees who are living solely on a fixed income are voters who are probably hurting the most from rising Gas prices, as well as grocery prices as well. 

The rising cost of housing, food and other necessities are huge drivers of inflation and they fall especially hard on lower-income voters, like those who are living on fixed incomes as I mentioned before. So far no one has offered any proposals, Democrat nor Republican to address the hardships fixed income voter are facing right now. Food and gasoline as well as housing are a huge share of total spending for fixed income and low income voters than for higher-income households.

Instead of congress focusing on passing abortion rights legislation that would codify ROE v WADE, they should be focusing on bread and butter issues that majority of voters give a damn about!

Same 'ol, Same 'ol.....Rural Voters and their disdain for the Democrat Party

Rural voters here in Georgia and across the country are voting their economic interests and have abandoned Democrats because they feel the party overlooks, ignores, and disrespects them. Rural voters don’t think that Democrats understand the economic realities of rural and small town life and have not focused attention on them. Instead, rural voters see leading Democrats like Stacey Abrams and Jon Ossoff as coming from and supporting urban concerns. Rural folk also believe that Democrats ignore rural needs and that rural areas do not get their fair share of resources. For example, many rural areas like Eastman, Montezuma, Talbot

ton, Statenville, Homerville, Folkston,  have faced recession-like conditions for decades due to a decline in manufacturing and small farms struggling to compete with corporate farms.

Yet, national Democrats focus on the problems of minorities and rarely talk about the problems of rural voters.  This fact is why identity politics backfires on Democrats. Understandably, Democrats support Black Lives Matter to rectify the historic injustices done to African-Americans. However, rural voters hear Democrats excluding them from help. When working class whites claim that “all lives matter,” they are not opposing helping African-Americans per se. Instead, they are claiming that working class whites need and want the help also. If Democrats could broaden their appeal beyond race, spend time in rural areas, and create policies to deliver benefits to these rural areas, Democrats could win more elections.

Rebirth of the Bluedog Dems...Time to make a comeback!

For some time now it has bothered me how the tide has turned against the classic blue dog, Sam Nunn Democrats. The tide I describe isn’t a Republican tide, but rather a Progressive (liberal) tide that has overtaken the Democratic Party. 

A battle within the Democratic Party that by all accounts seems to leave Blue Dog Democrats in the dust and forgotten. Blue Dog Democrats are chastised, if not just blatantly ignored to benefit an extreme left wing, socialist, hyper oversensitive political correctness wave, called Progressives. Progressive leaders just don’t have any tolerance at all for fellow Democrats who are unwilling to subscribe to their brand and wing of the Democratic Party… and it shows.

Blue Dog Democrats are what I classify as Democrats who fight for the working person, fight for strong unions that put people to work. They love good businesses who create tax revenue, employ people and support them. They fought for civil rights and continue to do so. They understand that welfare is a hand up not a federal giveaway program to secure future voters. Sam Nunn Democrats are those who have traditionally fought against unfair business practices and are fiercely loyal proud Americans who bleed for the red, white and blue. Sam Nunn Democrats have proven to fight for Democracy around the world and are proud of their country and what we represent.

Progressives… well they have transformed the Democratic Party into a party that fights for the non-worker vs. the worker. They fight against business vs. supporting business. They fight for socialism and are staunch fighters against capitalism.  They fight for illegal immigration vs. supporting those who chose to abide by the law to obtain legal citizenship. 

So where has the Sam Nunn Democrat gone? I know they are still some among us here in the Peach State, but over the last few decades they have become the silent majority. A silent majority in the Democratic Party that has stood by and watched the minority Progressive wave slowly plant its roots. Silent, while at the same time willingly accepting unwarranted criticism and being cast aside by the vocal Progressive activists.

I can say that it is time for those of you who still believe in the Blue Dog branch of the party to get vocal and fight. Fight for your place in the party of Jefferson-Jackson

Embrace and recruit candidates that have shown the ability to lead and deliver results, who fit their district while proudly displaying their zeal to make local, state and federal government better. Look at what’s happening with the Republican Party.

The Biggest Lie Ever Told: The Republicans are for "Small" Government

The Republican Party touts itself as the advocate for small government and individual liberty. Well, that's the biggest lie ever told in Politics.

For all the talk about how Democrats are the party of Big Government, let's keep it real...The Republican Party also love Big Government. A few marginal party activists, like U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, or even Paul Broun of Georgia have championed limited government, even libertarian policies. But this is not at all the norm for the GOP nationally, state and local.

It has also supported government subsidies for religious institutions, government restrictions on immigration and free passage across international boundaries, government denial of collective bargaining rights for public sector workers and government interference with women’s right to abortion and doctors’ right to perform it. The Republicans has rallied around, (Guess what) government interference with the right of same-sex couples to marry, government provision of extraordinarily lengthy imprisonment for drug possession (for example, in the “war on drugs”) and numerous other nonviolent offenses, government interference with voting rights (such as “voter suppression” laws), and government restrictions on freedom of information.

Wait.....now there is plenty of GOP support for small government when it comes to cutting taxes on the wealthy, limiting regulation of big business, gutting environmental regulations, weakening legal protections for workers and minorities, and slashing government funding for public education, public health, and social welfare services. But there is a common thread to this kind of small government action. It is all designed to serve the interests of the wealthy and powerful at the expense of everyone else. (Look here in Georgia for example) Thus, the Republican Party opposes government alleviation of hunger through the distribution of food stamps, but supports government subsidies to corporations. I don't get it!

You can bet and you're already hearing it with this being the year that all 435 members of congress are up and many Senators face re-election and wanna be congressmen, women and senators are vying to occupy some of these seats, there will be plenty of rhetoric about freedom and limited government. But the party’s actual policies will reflect a very different agenda. For THOSE folks who can see beyond the deluge of SLICK campaign advertisements, it should be clear enough that the Republican Party’s claim to support small government  is a fraud, a scam, a outright lie! That claim is only an attractive mask, designed to disguise a party of privilege.

It's Time To Do Away With Gerrymandering

Are you frustrated with the political environment we see not only in Georgia but in Washington, D.C?

Looking at the entrenched partisanship and gridlock in our political system, it's easy to become cynical. Year after year, it seems nothing changes. That's because your votes don't really count. One of the reasons is simple: GERRYMANDERING
.

Gerrymandering has effectively disenfranchised the majority of voters - and they don't even know it.

Districts are noncompetitive, so the winners are determined in primary elections, where the turnout is always low (typically about a third of registered voters) and the electorate is dominated by the most extreme and partisan voters. Legislators can only be defeated in the primary and so must become rigidly ideological, since any compromise can (and has) cost members their careers. That has led to legislatures as well as Congress incapable of solving problems.

With the SCOTUS decision to drop section 4 of the VRA, which was a huge mistake, what really needs to be looked at now is the total elimination of Gerrymandering.

In this redistricting process, gerrymandering – the manipulation of district lines for political advantage – has become the political weapon of choice. The two main purposes of gerrymandering are to protect the seats of incumbents and to allow the dominant party in a state to win more seats that it deserves.

A typical example of gerrymandering would be to draw district lines to keep a city with a large African American population out of a white Republican’s congressional district. The politicos would do this because African Americans are more likely to vote Democrat. In exchange for this the Republicans let the Democrats exclude white rural areas likely to vote Republican from their districts.

The result of this gerrymandering is that our politics get artificially polarized along ideological, cultural and racial lines. Republicans can safely ignore the concerns of African American voters because they know they won’t be a factor in their reelection. Democrats can safely ignore the concerns of rural and suburban whites because they know those people don’t vote in their districts. Instead of a healthy two party contest, elections become nasty little battles between different factions of one party. In many cases narrow ideologically focused bands of extremists can dominate the electoral process. Candidates have to pander to these groups rather than address issues of real concern to voters.

Eliminating gerrymandering for Congressional & Legislative districts could make our politics more moderate. When elections are held in predetermined geographic regions not drawn up by politicians, American voters tend to elect moderate middle of the road candidates dedicated to compromise. When politicians have to face election outside predetermined regions they tend to move the center. History also proves that candidates will abandon polarizing racial, cultural and ideological politics when their re-election depends on those of another race or culture. Getting rid of gerrymandering wouldn’t be a cure all but it could go a long way to improving our political system. In particular it could give us a House of Representatives that actually looks something like the America it represents.

Wilcox County Voters gear up to elect its next Sheriff

Wilcox County voters will go to the polls to elect a new sheriff to replace former sheriff Stacy Bloodsworth who was indicted back in May on charges of assaulting inmates in custody and conspiring to cover it up.

Lonnie Curry (D), a 30 year veteran of Wilcox County Law Enforcement will face Mike Martin (R) as well as three Independents, Bob Addison, Hank Collier and Samuel McKinney in the November Election. Its very likely that this will result in a runoff. I'll have more on thid race as we get closer to November

10 Reasons Obama Should Lose in November

At last check:

 

1. US sovereign debt downgrade-1st time in US history.

2. Federal spending 25% of GDP, highest since WW2.

3. Budget deficit 10% of GDP, highest since WW2.

4. Federal debt 67% of GDP, highest since just after WW2.

5. Employment just at 58.1%, lowest since 1983.

6. Long term unemployment 45.9% of total, highest since great depression.

7. Increase in non-farm payroll only 0.5%, slowest job growth 26 months after a severe recession since WW2.

8. Homeownership down to 59.7%, lowest since 1965.

9. Percentage of taxpayers paying income tax only 49%, lowest in modern era.

10. Government dependency (receiving 1 or more federal benefits) at 47%, highest in US history.


We are at equivalent spending equal to a WORLD WAR spending, and that is mind boggling.

Obviously, this is not working and is not going to be sustainable.

 

If he wins re-election & at this point its 50/50, it would be because of voters  mistrust of handing the GOP total control of all 3 branches of government or just flat-out mistrust of Mitt Romney

Right Wingers & The Victim Card

Right-Wingers fancy themselves as hard-nosed realists. Unlike fluffy-headed liberal/progressives, who spend their days dreaming of a perfect world, the right wingers are suspicious of utopian schemes. They know quite well that life is hard, and they disdain few things more than whiners and complainers.

But if right wingers hate victimhood so much, why then does the Republican Party encourage its base to feel so aggrieved, especially at the hands of those snotty "elites"? Whether it's complaining about lipstick on a pig or bashing Washington insiders, the media and those oh-so-condescending Hollywood celebrities, Republicans have turned their own kind of victimhood into a political art form.

In fairness, Republicans didn't invent victim politics, nor do they have the franchise on it. But the form they engage in is particularly troublesome, not least because so many conservatives seem not to even realize they're up to their eyebrows in a game they claim to despise.

When Americans go on the attack against elites, historically we think of economic populism, the kind of class warfare pushed by the left wingers. This is about money, inequality and an agenda to redistribute wealth. Liberal/Progressive activists rail against robber barons and corporate fat cats.

Conservative populism leverages social rather than economic cleavages. The agenda is mobilizing resentful masses that get a vicarious go at thumbing their noses at anyone they feel looks down on them. The enemies list is made up of professors, public intellectuals and entertainers, not captains of industry. And without any real redress in mind, conservative populism is all about emotion and personal grievance, not righting any particular social or economic wrong. You'd think the rise of conservative media, eight years of a conservative administration (2000-2008) and a conservative-leaning Supreme Court would have undermined the GOP's victim strategy.

Right Wingers still behave like a battered minority. That's too bad, because it undermines the conservative critique of the politics of victimization, which is not a bad one. When they aren't practicing victimhood, roght wingers argue that it weakens moral accountability and therefore personal responsibility. To identify yourself as a perpetual victim, they would say, tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy that can undermine an individual's or a group's ability to improve their lot over time.

So what I'm saying is please stop playing the Victim Card! Just stop it!!

Myths About The Poor

Myth #1. The poor are poor because they are lazy. This is the biggest myth of all. The typical“poor” person in America works 40 or more hours a week. He also spends countless hours commuting to and from work and tending other tasks because when you’re poor you have to do everything for yourself. And the jobs they typically have are among the most physically demanding there are.

Myth #2. The poor are poor because they are irresponsible with their money. It is true that most poor people have what is known as “bad credit.” But what is one to do when your monthly expenses constantly outpace your income. I’ve heard Republicans complain that if poor people would stop spending their money unnecessarily and put some away they wouldn’t be so poor. Gees, how clueless can you get. Poor people pay their bills until there isn’t anything left. They agonize every single month over what to pay and what not to pay. There’s no “what do we do with the left over money” because there isn’t any.

Myth #3. The poor are subsidized by welfare. Wrong, most people who are counted as “poor” don’t get any public assistance at all because they don’t qualify. Those who do mostly receive some kind of food assistance, but only of they are severely disabled or have children. And the vast majority of those people work full time at jobs like police officers, firefighters, and members of the U.S. military. I personally believe that welfare does not subsidize the poor; it subsidizes the employers who refuse to pay an equitable wage.

But there other reasons the Right-Wing have such disdain for the poor. These reasons have to do with the habit of dehumanizing your enemy in order to ease your conscience. And the best way to do this is to invent myths about your enemy and then repeat them until you believe them yourself

I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point, although my views are generally conservative, I have a deep passion for issues dealing with the poor. No one asked to be poor...Being poor is knowing how hard it is to stop being poor, Being poor is seeing how few options you have, Being poor is a six-hour wait in an emergency room with a sick child asleep on your lap, Being poor is relying on people who don’t give a damn about you. Republicans, stop being so damn hard on the poor at a time when everyone....EVERYONE is having a hard time with the ongoing sluggish economy & the lack of jobs being created at this juncture. No one wants nor asked to be poor!

The Rich, The Poor & Deficit Reduction

Every politician claims to love the poor, the downtrodden, the unemployed. Yet, the same politicians vote to cut the deficit, hurting those poor he/she loves so much. Sadly, the poor buy into it. Both parties claim that reducing the federal deficit will reduce unemployment and benefit the working class and the poor.

Exactly how a reduction in net federal dollars flowing into the economy will stimulate employment and benefit the working class, never is explained, because there is no explanation. It is a bogus argument.To reduce the deficit requires taxes to be increased or federal spending to be reduced.

The Democrats want to reduce the deficit by increasing taxes on the “wealthy.”
The Tea Partiers/Republicans want to cut the deficit through federal spending reductions.

Functionally, there is no difference between a tax increase and a spending reduction; both reduce the amount of money being added to the economy.Traditionally, the Republicans have favored cutting taxes, an act that benefits economic growth. Democrats traditionally have wanted to spend more, which also benefits economic growth. Unfortunately, the Tea Party, which is in my opinion is a outgrowth of President Reagan’s memorable statement, “. . . government is the problem,” has taken over the Republican Party, who now will do and say anything to get into power. This has dragged in the Democrats, who will do and say anything to stay in power, so both parties now are preaching an anti growth line, being led by a group of economic know-nothings.

Extreme views often gain favor during difficult times, when people are desperate for a solution, and in this case, the extreme views are supported by the wealthy. Note how people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have made statements actually supporting a tax increase! Why do rich people want their taxes raised? Not out of generosity. Read on .Because a growing economy requires a growing supply of money, a tax increase and/or a spending reduction reduce economic growth

And no matter how it’s done, deficit reduction hurts the lower incomes most. Consider a tax increase on the wealthiest. What does it accomplish? It reduces the amount of money in the economy. A Monetarily Sovereign nation does not spend tax money. It has no need to. The spending itself creates money. So what happens to tax money? It leaves the economy and is destroyed. It simply ceases to exist. History shows that every depression and most recessions not only have been caused by reductions in the money supply, but even by reductions in money supply growth. Who suffers most during recessions and depressions – the wealthiest or the poorest? Right, the poorest. Although tax increases will force the wealthiest to pay more taxes, that will not affect their life styles. They’ll find more tax “loopholes.” They’ll get by on two cars rather than three (Dealerships may fire some working salespeople), and the remodeling of the 2nd home may be delayed a year (Some tradespeople will lose their jobs). But life will go on for the wealthy. Not so for the less wealthy who, during a recession, may become unemployed, lose their housing, spend less and cancel plans for children’s college

In short, all taxes and tax increases hurt everyone in the economy — they are recessionary — but they hurt the poor more than the wealthy, so by comparison, the wealthy become wealthier. Tax increases make the wealth gap grow.Now consider a federal spending reduction. Medicare and Social Security are the biggest targets, and who relies most on these federal programs. If Medicare and Social Security are cut, the rich will hardly notice. Warren Buffet probably doesn’t even know whether he receives Medicare and Social Security benefits.

Financially, it is meaningless to him. Cutting social programs hurts the poor more than the rich, increasing the gap between rich and poor. Or, we could cut military spending. This would cut profits and jobs from all those industries that sell to the U.S. military, and it would cut the number of salaried service people. Cutting military programs hurts the poor more than the rich, increasing the gap between rich and poor.

GOP's Culture War against Women.....What is going on here?

Democrats are in full cry against what they call a “war on women” waged by Republicans. At first blush, it comes across as gross exaggeration, Democrats pulling out all the stops in a highly charged election year.Of course, the GOP is aware that women vote. And the fact is there are women voters who oppose abortion and health insurance coverage of contraception. These women would gouge their own eyes than give a dime to Planned Parenthood of America.

And the GOP will do anything to get these women to the polls come November. Even if it means ratcheting up the rhetoric on the campaign trail.But here’s the frightening thing: There’s genuine substance behind the rhetoric. Federal laws have accommodated religious beliefs of doctors and nurses at the expense of individual legal rights to abortion, for example. And while that may be understandable in a society that respects religious differences, state legislatures have acted as if this were a matter of an official state religion, too. Suddenly, it’s not just about abortion

A woman’s ability to obtain birth control pills, breast cancer screenings and pap smears is at risk. Barefoot and pregnant? That’s not even the half of it. There are women who will die in this war.It’s a nationwide phenomenon: States are proposing and passing laws that make ideological points at the expense of women’s health. The Guttmacher Institute, a nonpartisan health think tank, estimates 430 abortion restrictions have been introduced by state legislatures this year. The barrage of artillery coming from the right is hitting its mark and changing the way we talk about women’s health issues.

Who would have thought that, in 2012, a women’s right to contraception would be up for discussion? Or that a woman expressing her views on the topic would be taunted as a “prostitute” and “slut”?

Up in Atlanta last week, female legislators, all Democrats, walked out of their chamber after the Republican majority voted to prohibit state employees from using state health benefits to pay for abortions and to deny employees of private religious institutions the right to demand insurance policies pay for contraceptives.“They never had a problem with it, but here come the right-wing shock troops, marching, marching, marching,” Nan Orrock, one of the Georgia lawmakers who walked out, told her local TV station. “And women are on the bull’s-eye target.

For Some Republicans, Distortions & Lies are the Only Way to Win an Election

Once considered liberal and progressive Pre-1964, the Republican Party has been taken over by right-wing conservative con artists who lie, cheat and steal to gain and maintain power. From voter fraud and suppression to smear campaigns, personal attacks and media manipulation, they have been using the same strategies for more than a hundred years.

While Democratic Dirty Tricks showed up around FDR's first election in '32, Kennedy/Nixon (Chicago) in '60 and Lyndon Johnson in '64, these lead to The New Deal, Social Security and Civil Rights while Republican Party Dirty Tricks gave us depressions, poverty and massive national debt.

Some Republicans know if most people vote, they would never win so they try to demoralize the Democratic base and suppress the vote as much as possible, they buy some people off with tax cuts and scare the rest into voting against their own interests and that's how they win. It's a divide and conquer strategy that has worked well and they refine and expand it every election year. Hey if ain't broke, don't fix it! Its been a success for them, so I wouldn't blame them for re-creating the same strategy

• Demoralize the Democratic base with phony press releases and whisper campaigns.
• Attack opponents strength with character assassination.
• Suppress the vote in every possible way.
• Buy some people off with tax cuts.
• Scare the hell out of the rest of the voters into voting against their own interests.

Republicans today have two major factors on their side; a fanatical base willing to carry out the dirty tricks and the greediest billionaires to finance them. They deceive good people by raising the red flag of abortion and gay marriage to divert attention away from their arrogant and greedy policies which cause the poverty, war and destroying our Natural Resources we are facing today.

Now look, Democrats stretch the truth and even lie outright as well, especially when an embarrassing personal fact comes to light (Case in point, John Edwards, Anthony Weiner).

But lord knows some republicans lie alot and unashamedly, both on the campaign trail and when they're in office, and they slander their opponents whenever they get the chance. If political lying were a criminal offense, Democrats would be guilty of misdemeanors and parking violations, while Republicans would be guilty of the worst kind of felonies, aggravated assaults, Kidnapping, or worse.

Is Democratic policy is beneficial to more people than Republican policy??? Democrats have a distinct advantage in an election on the bread & butter issues. The majority of people in this country want good wages, employee and consumer protection, affordable health care, a well maintained infrastructure, and so on. They only want us to put our soldiers in harm's way when it's absolutely necessary.

Those are the kinds of things Democratic policy is all about, so Democrats believe if they more-or-less tell the truth, throwing in some exaggeration along the way and hiding their personal faults, they should win elections -- that is, if the elections are won on the issues.

The Republican philosophy is entirely different. It believes that what's good for the ruling class (The Upper Bracket) is good for the country. That's what keeps America strong. Low wages help businesses prosper, which makes the country richer, so low wages are a good thing...let's see an unemployment level of 6% or higher helps keep workers afraid of losing their jobs, so they work harder for less pay......or worker illness doesn't hurt the bottom line since there are always plenty of others to take their place, so affordable health care is an unneeded expense. Social welfare programs make people lazy and less willing to take bad jobs for low wages, so they're counterproductive. Now Social Welfare does make "SOME" people lazy, but not everyone who's on it....

How many people would vote for the Republican Party if it admitted to its core philosophy? 35%? 45%? Truly doctrinaire Republicans believe they must be in power, not just for their own personal gain, but for the good of the country. If the bleeding heart Democrats took over, they honestly believe, we would lose our wealth and our ascendancy in the world. So it's their patriotic duty to win by any means necessary. Since they can't win elections by running on their real agenda, they win by lying about their agenda and smearing their opponents with as much mud as they can. (They also do everything they can to divert people's attention, of course, by claiming to stand for morality, motherhood and apple pie and making people believe they're in danger and only the Republicans can keep the country safe)

When they want to pass tax cuts for the rich, they say the cuts are for the middle class. When they want to bankrupt Social Security, they say they want people to have more money for their retirement, and on and on.

A republican friend of mine who I've known for over 6 years said this..."We're (Republicans) the Daddy Party that knows what's best for the country, even if the people are too childish to understand. We may....stretch it a lil' bit, but they're doing it for all of us. Father Knows Best". I was taken aback by that statement, but he's still my boy & we don't let our politics get in the way of friendship, (he's a unabashed Tea Partier...me, a rural conservative democrat). That statement makes me think how many actually think like that? Who knows!

Anyway, I know I can be sarcastic sometimes when I write blog posts on this blog, but this is not one of those times. I'm being deadly earnest. This is the way things are. And it's why Democrats are always so frustrated and befuddled when the Republicans come after them with jaw-dropping lies and the nastiest of smears. Democrats can't believe anyone would stoop so low, because the Democrats' desire to tell the truth makes it difficult for them to understand how anyone can lie with such abandon. Hardcore Republicans, on the other hand, probably know deep down in their DNA that lying is the only way for them to stay in power.