The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC) recently reported that two South Georgia mayors have endorsed incumbent Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff over Republican challenger U.S. Rep. Mike Collins.
There is nothing particularly unusual about two South Georgia mayors endorsing a Democratic incumbent for the Senate —but there is when that incumbent’s voting record is so far removed from the political values traditionally associated with South Georgia and the mayors’ instant constituencies.
But the AJC had a motive. Its presentation of the story was that Republican elected officials were “crossing the line” by endorsing Ossoff.
There is a problem with that narrative.
The two mayors were elected in nonpartisan municipal elections. They may personally identify as Republicans, but they were not elected as Republicans. There is a difference.
That distinction matters because the AJC’s narrative creates the impression that Republican voters elected Republican mayors who then abandoned the Republican Party to support a Democrat for the United States Senate. That is not what happened. The mayors were elected as non-partisans to Georgia municipal offices.
But the more important question isn’t how AJC’s prevarications characterized the endorsements. The more important question is why these two mayors believe Ossoff deserves re-election.
Voteview places Ossoff’s Democrat career party-loyalty score at approximately 96 percent. Heritage Action’s lifetime conservative score for Ossoff is just 4 percent.
On taxes and spending, Ossoff is a party line Democrat just as he is on major federal spending bills, on abortion, and on gun policy. On President Donald Trump’s agenda, his opposition has been overwhelming.
Then there’s women’s sports.
In 2021, Ossoff voted against an amendment restricting biological males from participating in women’s sports. In 2024, he voted against a federal-funding amendment aimed at institutions permitting males to participate in women’s sports. In 2025, he voted against the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, which sought to establish biological sex as the standard for women’s collegiate athletics.
Three opportunities, three failures.
And there is the Equality Act.
Ossoff was an original Senate co-sponsor of the Equality Act in 2021 and again in 2023. The legislation would expand federal civil rights protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity and extend those protections into areas including public accommodations and education.
It is difficult to square that record with the suggestion that Ossoff’s positions are comfortably aligned with conservative South Georgia.
And that brings the discussion back to the endorsements.
One of the mayors reportedly cited his personal friendship with Mr. Ossoff and the two or three million dollars in federal resources Ossoff had helped bring to his city.
That is all well and fine. But is that not also one of the fundamental responsibilities of a senator? A senator is supposed to represent the entire state. A senator is supposed to work with local officials.
That is called constituent services.
An incumbent United States senator seeking reelection will naturally cultivate relationships with mayors, county commissioners, business leaders and other local officials.
That raises an obvious question: What exactly is it about Ossoff’s record that makes a “die-hard conservative”, as one mayor described himself, believe Georgia should send him back to Washington?
If the answer is friendship, that is a personal consideration. If the answer is federal dollars, that is constituent services. If the answer is that Ossoff’s political philosophy is closer to conservative South Georgia values than his Republican opponents, that is a political argument.
But that argument would require explaining how a senator with a 96 percent Democratic party-loyalty record and a 4 percent lifetime Heritage Action score is the better conservative choice.
That is a difficult argument to make.
Do these mayors support transgender men in women’s sports or women’s bathrooms? Do they support open borders, no identification or proof of citizenship for voter registration and voting and the highest federal tax hike in American history? Ossoff does.
Mayors shouldn’t have to trade political allegiance for federal attention. And a senator shouldn’t expect endorsement simply because he or she performed the job to which they were elected.
The 1980 novel “Confederacy of the Dunces”– author John Kennedy Toole’s one hit wonder– derived its title referencing an epigram from Jonathan Swift’s essay “Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting.” It suggested that “When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.”
As to the former part of that epigram, while Trump may certainly be no genius, his policies are close; as to the latter and Ossoff, well, there you have it.
Gary Wisenbaker (gwisenbaker@c21realtyadvisors.com) is a realtor and published author living in Valdosta.
