Interlude: Do Georgia Democrats have what it takes to Play Ball Again here in the Rural Red?

The fact is this: BLUECOLLAR, WHITE WORKING CLASS VOTERS is the key for the Democratic Party here in Georgia.

And to get a chunk of those voters, democrats have got to find candidates can that talk that can relate to them, someone who talk the working man's rep.

We should think about this. The blue-collar vote is huge. Skilled and semi-skilled manual jobs are on the decline, of course, but if we count as blue-collar those workers without a college degree then blue-collar voters represent the majority of voters in this state. They are the real swing vote in Georgia. "Their loyalties tend to shift from election to election and in so doing determine the winners in any political race, but here in Georgia, that have has not been the case in a couple of years

Among blue-collar voters, more men than women favor republicans, so we can ask what's going on with the men. It might seem that their pocketbooks say one thing, their votes another, but could it be that, by some good fortune, blue-collar men are actually better off than we imagine? Right now in this current economic climate, No, that can't be it!

Even if poor blue-collar men were pro-republican in general, we might at least assume that they would oppose the Georgia GOP's massive program of tax cuts to corporations & the well-to-so if they thought it favored the rich? If we did, then we'd be wrong again. So, what's going on? Should we throw out the old classic Clinton-era explanation for how we all vote: "It's the economy, stupid"? Not right away. Maybe the blue-collar man who favors that tax cut is thinking "the economy stupid" but only in the short term. He badly needs even the small amounts of money he'll get from a tax cut to repair his car or contribute to the rent. But then many working-class men labor decade after decade at difficult jobs to secure a future for their children. So if they think long term as a way of life, why are they thinking short-term when it comes to their vote?

Part 2: Do Georgia Democrats have what it takes to Play Ball Again here in the Rural Red?

There seems to be a growing sentiment, that Democrats need to win elections in the rural areas of the state to control the political future of the state of Georgia. That is true! But there is little political wisdom in going about how to do just that.

The fact is, just looking at the numbers for house seats, Senate seats or votes for governor, that Democrats can't control Georgia state politics without victories down in the isolated regions of the state, including the black belt rural areas. However, the rural region is an important bloc of votes and is winnable for Democrats. There is little reason not to compete for rural voters.

Republicans are strong rural Georgia. Despite that, the suburbs of North Atlanta are the base for Republicans here in the state. It is the one region of the state where Republican representation in the House and Senate seems solid. The other, formerly a traditional Democratic region, now controlled by Republicans in central & southern portion of the state were & can become competitive for Democrats once again

Many Democratic activist & pundits seem inclined to write-off rural Georgia to eternal Republican control. That's not a way to become competitive in Georgia if dems start to take that kind of mindset A Howard Dean type inspired DNC 50 State Strategy is a much better approach. (159 county approach). It will take more time and resources to show impressive results. It should be given more time and a much higher political priority

In many Georgia rural counties, the Democratic Party lacks the infrastructure needed to win campaigns. Areas that have strong democratic parties across rural Georgia should partner with a struggling rural Democratic Party to help them raise money, develop public relations operations, candidate recruitment programs and GOTV machinery. Small contribution of resources in those areas should show dramatic results in future elections. The Georgia Republican base was largely developed in a very similar fashion. The fat cats of the Republican Right poured tens, hundreds of thousands of dollars into local Republican Parties, while local Democratic Parties lacked outside help from State Democrats

Depending how redistricting goes, Democrats need to help local Democratic Parties take on Republican incumbents like Tony McBrayer (R) Tifton, Greg Morris (R) Vidalia, Mark Hatfield (R-Waycross), Johnny Grant (R-Milledgeville), etc In 2008, the unexpected strong showing of Barack Obama here in Georgia could would have helped democrats possibly take back some of those seats, but recruitment was lackluster.

A Democratic political message that highlights economic bread and butter issues in a populist form can help Democrats win all across Georgia. Democrats need to aggressively publicize Republican hypocrisy on moral issues. Democrats need to crusade against legal and illegal corruption in government. It is important for Democrats to respond to Republican lies on issues like guns, religious freedom and taxes. Georgia Democrats need to define themselves instead of letting Republicans define them.

Interlude before moving to Part 2 of: Do Georgia Democrats have what it takes to Play Ball Again here in the Rural Red?

The Republican Party here in Georgia, all will agree, is at an all-time high, while the Democratic Party, most will agree, is at an all-time low. Some have even gone as far to say (like myself) that the Democratic Party is collapsing, falling apart, or imploding. Is this an accurate assessment or just the wishful thinking of partisan activists?



Democrats typically were the majority in the state government, the very time Georgia rose from the ashes of the civil war to the south's major superpower, the leading progressive state in the south



Look, Democrats have to begin with a bottom-line admission to themselves: They LOST the 2002, 2006 & 2010 elections, therefore, there is something wrong with them that needs changing. The Republicans do not have to change their strategy because they are winning--at the state level, in the statehouses, at congress, and everywhere else that the parties contend.



Democrats have lost 3 straight statewide elections for governor. And the only reason Perdue won in 2002 was the public was punishing Barnes and the Democrats for 1) Changing the confederate flag & 2) Teachers were mad as hell--so it was not so much a win for them (GOP) as a loss for them (Dems). (So I thought). This means that THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH DEMOCRATS. It is not the Republicans who are broken. Dems are the ones who have to change. Our state does not accept our vision and our values, which they mistake as those of the National Democratic Party. So Dems (who are dominated by the progressives) have to redefine what it means to be a progressive in a state in which liberalism was never a popular option (if it ever was). To give you the short answer up-front, what this means is that the Democratic Party needs to become a populist party again rather than a liberal party. I've said in the past & most recently that it needs to stop shunning consevrative democrats 7 begain to embrace them regardless of their views & positions.



Some Georgia Democrats nowadays want to start a race for governor, senator or any other statewide race by conceding huge parts of the state to the Republicans. Of the 159 counties, probably 60% of them are so red that Democrats do not even bother to field a campaign there, they concede them without a fight. There are probably 40-45 counties that I wou;d consider a potential swing county, where by definition dems have to fight the Republicans. In other words, Democrats have to fight Republicans for votes even in the blue-counties, while the Republicans can take more than half the state for granted without having to defend their voting base. This puts the Democrats in the position of a football team who must play the entire game only in their half of the field--such a team cannot win many games in the long run. If Democrats are going to be born again as a majority party, they have to speak to the whole state again. . . . When Democrats choose not to compete on three-quarters of the Georgia Red Clay soil, they have no margin for error in statewide elections--and they're almost sure to be a permanent minority in the state legislature. Meanwhile, Republicans squeeze them on the turf they still hold. A majority party must be a state party, not a regional one.



Now we have three options; three approaches for democrats to turning this all around:


1) They can insist they were right all along and stay the course, confident that the voters will come to their senses in the next election cycle



2) They can wait and hope for the Ga Republicans to self-destruct due to their supposed extremism or overreach that, they like to assume, puts them out-of-touch with average Georgians



3) They can change something about themselves that will make Democrats more attractive to at least some of those red-county voters who are presently voting against them



First about the supposed extremism of the Republicans and their potential to self-destruct. Some of us made this exact same argument starting in 2005 when republicans took total control of the state legislature. We were SURE that Georgians would not tolerate the right-wing policies of the GOP. Well, we were totally full of crap. Perdue defeated democrat Mark Taylor overwhelmingly in 2006 and went on to lead a "Georgia" conservative revolution that is still steam-rolling along with the 2010 knockout of Georgia Dems. So if you are waiting for the Republicans to self-destruct, don't hold your breath..........FOR NOW!

Part 1: Do Georgia Democrats have what it takes to Play Ball Again here in the Rural Red?

Now, what does this have to do with the future of the Georgia Democratic Party? Well, my point is simple: if the Democratic Party is to have a future, it must find it in the unifying, post-identity group politics and values of populist rural Georgia. They need to champion conservative social values; wrap themselves without embarrassment in the American flag; slather on a healthy dose of religion; and leaven it all with the traditional liberal concerns about economic justice. In other words, if the Democratic Party wants to flourish in the near-term, it had better seek out the lost Populists among it former coalition partners and invite them back into the big-tent. Otherwise, Republicans will continue to dominate our state politics.

The inability to pick up seats on the local level for state senator & rep going back to 2006 is due to not paying attention to rural white working class voters concerns down state in part to not addressing social and cultural concerns. We ignore those concerns at our peril. At the same time, though, there has been a view that we can override those concerns (up to a point) by appealing to the white working class on the economy. That alone will not enable democrats to begin picking up more support among this reliable voting bloc.

Consequently, it's important to develop an economic agenda that appeals strongly enough to the white working class to be able to pull some of its members into our column. DEMS DON'T HAVE TO WIN THEM ALL, JUST SOME WILL MAKE THE DIFFERENCE IN A ELECTION. In developing this agenda, I would argue, dems have to swallow hard and acknowledge a couple of daunting obstacles that stand before them.

For one, policy agenda of economic liberalism -- modest increases in the minimum wage, labor law reform, improvements in education and in job training, financial aid for college students, universal health care is necessary to the economic security of non-college households in general, be they white or minority. But the forms of help that it offers to the white working class aren't large enough and wouldn't flow into their hands quickly enough to persuade them to dems us as an obvious slam-dunk alternative to the Republicans.

For the other: For all the talk about economic populism, Democrats no longer have the ability to make a truly effectively economically populist appeal to the white working class. I'm talking about the ability to do it, not the desire to do it. There are certainly Democrats who lack the desire. But even those who have the desire nevertheless lack the ability.

In order for an appeal to economic populism to win over its audience, it must do more than attack the big guys. Rather, it must address three assertions to its audience. The first: You are the backbone of the state's economy. The second: The big guys are making it hard for you to make a living because they are thwarting your ability to act as the backbone of the economy. The third: In your struggle with the big guys, we're (Democrats) are on YOUR side -- and here's how we're going to help...

But even economic liberals here in the state can no longer make such an appeal. They can't do it because they won't make the first assertion, and thus won't utter the last 12 words of the second assertion. They could say these things in the past. In the agrarian days, they could go before a crowd of farmers and tell them: It is the sweat of your brow that feeds and clothes our nation. In the industrial age, they could say to factory workers: It is your muscle that drive the wheels of our mines and mills. They could echo the words of "Solidarity Forever. "It is you who plow the prairies, build the cities, dig the mines... -- without your brain and muscle, not a single wheel can turn. Today, though, if Democrats stand before the white working class, they can't even make a proper beginning: YOU are the backbone.

Democrats can't say it because they don't believe it. What they do believe is something quite different: We now live in the age of human capital. Non-college workers, be they white or people of color, be they union members or otherwise, lack the crucial human capital of a four-year degree. (After all, the gap between college earnings and non-college earnings is much larger than it used to be.) The economy is now a knowledge economy, and higher education is a crucial source of knowledge, and so how can non-college Georgia workers be its backbone?

To go beyond their base and into the white working class, Democrats also have to be willing to go beyond a couple of their assumptions about what belongs in the liberal economic agenda. The first step for Democrats is to acknowledge that there is a problem.

One point on which all Democrats need to agree is that the party needs a red-state strategy, Georgia version of the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council).

Dems have to find candidates that are able to talk to, not at working class voters of this state. The last election, Roy Barnes did try to talk to working class folks, but with the anti-"D" fever so strong & the fact the RGA spent millions in attacking Barnes thwarted any attempt he had in appealing to this bloc of voters.

The time for excuses are no more. Where the Democrats are failing to connect, the tea party is succeeding. That rising conservative movement has been extraordinarily good at tapping into the fury of families not only here in Georgia, but across the nation, who are neither rich nor poor.

Democrats have failed to relate to white working-class voters. Black working-class voters never abandoned the party, but the percentage of working-class whites who identified as Democrats fell over a 10 year span in this state.

Obama's Citizenship Status makes it way to the Georgia Legislature

Time to tell it like it is.............

Once again, the President’s citizenship are up for debate, this time by State Rep Mark Hatfield (R-Waycross) who filed a bill yesterday to require the president & vice -president to show proof of their US Citizenship before being placed on the ballot here in Georgia in 2012. And what makes it so sad is that 94 Georgia State GOP Reps signed onto this non-sense! This so-called issue has really worn out its welcome, yet it persists, a tumor that continues to eat away at the President’s legitimacy in the eyes of his detractors. One thing I don’t think anyone would call it is an example of people having a right to their own opinion.

It has been said, many times, that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion but not his or her own facts. The President’s citizenship AND his religious beliefs are what they are. There is no debate here, you may have a right to your own opinion, but to cling to a mistaken notion is to willingly believe something that is not true. In spite of this simple concept, House Speaker David Ralston, said he would not stop committee-level debate of a bill to require President Barack Obama to provide proof of his American birth in order to get on the ballot next year. I should hope that an honest republican elected public official would do his best to set the record straight.

I consider telling the truth and the ability to educate the public to be valuable assets in a public official.

Again, this is not an objectionable claim (though one could debate whether Republicans have effectively listened to their constituents over the years). But when many loud, obnoxious public figures and angry citizens falsely accuse the President of being a secret Muslim outsider who illegally obtained his position and plans to transform the country into some socialist utopia, one has to wonder when politicians on the right will finally stand up and keep the discourse sensible.

Of course, there is a very real political motive at work here, as such false notions eat away at the President’s clout and motivate an angry hive of potential Republican voters eager to oust the so-called "Manchurian candidate" in 2012. By allowing this false information to persist, Republicans implicitly suggest that the President is lying. The 94 Republican politicians are allowing themselves to go on record as not being part of the insanity of the so-called “birther” movement while still acting as if it is a legitimate alternative viewpoint.

Ignorance should be confronted, and the truth should come first. Only then can meaningful debate occur. But if the goal is to win cheap political victories and to keep real issues out of the spotlight, then the logical thing to do is encourage and advance this ignorance.

Now despite my disapproval with the president on some things he has done as president, President Obama made a big deal out of trying to be post-partisan and uniting the country. Rather than demonize him by using the very same partisan tricks that he made every effort to rise above, perhaps the 94 Republicans that signed on to this bill can try being responsible for once and not even consider such a vote. Keep such miniscule, non-issues out of the public discourse.

By allowing these rumors and misconceptions to thrive, Georgia Republicans are not contributing to a stronger, more united country that stands with its President and can have mature discussions about the issues that really matter. These emotional, instinctive and unsupported arguments distract and divide in a time when the country, as well as the state desperately needs to move forward

This is not the kind of leadership that Hatfield & the 94 republican co-sponsors should be displaying when so many citizens have decided to give his party a chance to turn things around.

Hatfield calls himself a "CONSTITUTIONALIST", NOT A Birther. Mr Hatfield by filing such ridiculous piece of legislation such as requiring proof of citizenship by the president & vice-president (let's keep it real here, this is all about the president & nothing else), you officially make yourself a BIRTHER! Plain & Simple. Bobby Franklin, you are in the same boat.

This man has been president for 3 years 7 we are still talking about whether or not he is a citizen of the US. Obama was born in 1962 in Honolulu, Hawaii. Hawaii became a state (59th) in 1959. So case closed! But for some reason those on the lunatic fringe of the right continue to say that he was born in Kenya, hell some have said that he was born in Indonesia. Enough Already! And you can well expect Hatfield to appear on a few national shows such as Fox News, PBS, CNN, etc.

Albany Mayor Wilie Adams will not seek re-election in 2011

Yesterday Albany Mayor Willie Adams announced he will not seek a another term as mayor of Albany.

In Monday’s press conference Adams said he was proud to serve as Albany’s mayor - but believed it was time to serve his own family. "My wife, Connie, my children and my grandchildren, have often suffered because the people of Albany have come first," he said.

Adams became the first ever African American mayor in the city's history.

No candidate has announced intentions to run for the mayoral's post. Possibilities include City Commissioner John Howard, State Rep Winfred Dukes, Commission Chair Jeff Sinyard, ex-State Senator Michael Meyer von Bremen just to name a few.

The Audacity of Republican Hypocrisy

In his book "What's the Matter With Kansas?", which is a must read, historian Thomas Frank described how conservatives use social issues such as gay marriage to divert attention from other issues and drum up popular support for conservative causes. The outcome of the recent midterm provides another chapter in the book. Even before President Barack Obama took office, several prominent and highly paid conservative talk show hosts said that they hoped he would be a "failure." Since that time, they and others have served up an unending frenzy of distortions and fear-mongering aimed at furthering their personal, financial or political interests.

Republicans are attacking Obama for the very positions and policies their party recently embraced

The nation has been told that Mr. Obama is a "socialist" and a would-be dictator, largely on the basis of the so-called "individual mandate" in the health care bill. That ignores the fact that the individual mandate was first proposed by Republicans and the conservative Heritage Foundation as a more market-oriented alternative to a government-run, single-payer system. Back in 1993, 20 Republican senators introduced the Health Equity and Access Reform Act, which the respected, nonpartisan Kaiser Foundation, a health care study group, has shown in a side-by-side comparison to have striking similarities to the health care bill passed last year. Both have an individual mandate. Both ban exclusions for pre-existing conditions, call for insurance exchanges and offer subsidies for those who cannot afford to buy policies.

Even more on point is the insurance mandate program put in place in Massachusetts by then-Republican Gov. Mitt Romney. That many polls have Mr. Romney as the front-runner for the Republican Party nomination for 2012 at the very time that the Obama program was being opposed by every single Republican member of Congress is testimony to the intellectual dishonesty created by partisan politics. The four Republican co-sponsors of the 1993 individual mandate who are still in the Senate, and even Mr. Romney (who the libertarian Cato Institute cited as having created the "prototype" for the Obama program) now rail against the same principle they had proposed and that Mr. Romney signed into law. And most recently, the language in the Republicans' Pledge to America used to describe an alternative agenda to the president's could easily have been given in any Obama speech during last year's debate.

The nation has been told that Mr. Obama is a reckless spender and he is slammed for the TARP program, the auto company bailouts and the stimulus. That the TARP program was created by President George W. Bush, and that work on the auto industry bailout and a stimulus program began in the closing days of the Bush administration, has been lost in the din of battle. Most of the same members of the opposition who denounce the cost of the Obama program voted for the Bush prescription drug benefit that is now projected to cost more than $1 trillion. The Obama program is also now projected to cost $1 trillion, but the Congressional Budget Office "projects" that, unlike Mr. Bush's drug program, Mr. Obama's plan should decrease the federal budget deficit over 10 years. We'll see about that

Remember, too, that the same opposition that warns against the cost of Mr. Obama's health care program approved, almost without any debate, funds for the ill-conceived invasion of Iraq, which is now projected to cost at least $2 trillion to $3 trillion when all costs are taken into account. These same budget deficit hawks became the first in American history to cut taxes in a time of war, funding the wars on borrowed money. They are the same people who inherited a large budget surplus and produced eight successive years of large budget deficits and a collapsed economy, which they handed off to Mr. Obama

Like any government official, President Obama should be subject to criticism. Bringing health care up during the middle of an extreme financial crisis was certainly bad politics, for which principle he and the Democrats are paying a very, very heavy price for. Whether the health care program or the financial regulation overhaul will work are open questions (although the verdicts on TARP and the auto bailout seem favorable). Whether unemployment would be much higher or whether the economy would have collapsed without the stimulus are also open questions.

The political system is, in fact, dysfunctional and in need of massive change, as many of the voices of frustration and outrage rightly declaim. However, if that change is to take the form of a hypocritical opposition that says or does anything to regain a majority, and if public discourse is to be led by those who use half-truths, ad hominem attacks and hysteria, then heaven help us