Last week, Charlie Kirk, a conservative political activist, co-founder of Turning Point USA, and ally of President Trump was assassinated while speaking at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah.

Charlie had a huge following of supporters who strongly agreed with his conservative values and views. He also had a huge following of detractors who strongly disagreed with him.

This column will not focus on defending or challenging his views on the issues of the day.

In today’s deeply divided world, an effort to change strongly held views is an exercise in futility.

Instead, I will focus on how he conducted himself in expressing and discussing his views.

In watching videos of Charlie’s events with large crowds of mostly young people, college students and high school students I was always impressed with how different those engagements were in contrast to much of the political debates in our society.

Charlie presented his strongly held views without being aggressive or condescending. He always listened intently and respectfully to those who strongly disagreed with his views. He regularly took questions, answered questions. and listened to criticism of his views.

He encouraged and relished direct engagement with supporters and critics alike.

At the opening of his events, he often told attendees — if you disagree with my views, come to the front of the line so we can share and talk about our respective positions.

He was the epitome of a person who could disagree without being disagreeable.

Despite his civil approach in delivering, defending, and discussing his beliefs, he was regularly branded by his opponents as, among other things, a misogynist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, fascist, nazi, and a Hitler.

Immediately following his death and since then, there have been countless people saying or writing they condone, support, justify, or are actually celebrating Kirk’s murder.

They have a constitutional right to do that. They do not have human decency.

They do not understand or commit to the belief that every human life has value deserving protection and respect.

That is true even when that human expresses his or her beliefs that his or her opponents may strongly disagree with or even abhor without being murdered.

Mao Zedong, longtime leader of China once said, “Politics is war without bloodshed, while war is politics with bloodshed.”

Currently in America, politics has become war with bloodshed.
This lack of civil discourse and respect for differing opinions is not exclusive to any religious affiliation or political party.

In just the past few months, two children were murdered, and seventeen people were injured when a shooter opened fire during worship in a Catholic school in Minnesota. The shooter’s manifesto described his hatred of Blacks, Hispanics, Christians, Jews, and President Trump.

Also in Minnesota, a pro-abortion rights Democratic – Farm- Labor party State Representative was murdered along with her husband. A fellow pro-abortion rights Democratic -Farm – Labor Party State Senator, and his wife were shot by the same individual, but both survived the attempted murder. The murderer is an anti-abortion advocate.
Murders of children elected public officials, and political activists such as Charlie Kirk are more than tragedies.

They are a further indication of a warp speed acceleration in our society on the decline of civil discourse and decency, and the desensitization of the loss of human life.

Next year will mark 250 years of America’s experiences with free speech and civil discourse on and a wide range of divisive issues.

I am increasingly uncertain free speech and civil discourse in America will ever return.

In the book, Poorer Richard’s America, there is an ominous suggestion that Charles Darwin’s Theory of Organic Evolution: Natural Selection, applies not only to nature, but also to nations.
One example is Great Britain:

At one time, Great Britain was the most powerful nation in the world.
It was often said, “The sun never sets on the British Empire.”
After the end of World War Two, Great Britain declined rapidly as a great world power.
Some suggest that America is on a path do the same and will do so sooner rather than later.

That outcome is not inevitable.

Alexis de Tocqueville, a19th century French diplomat, political scientist, and social critic suggested that “America is great because America is good. If America ever ceases to be good, it will cease to be great.”

It is not too late for Americans, individually and collectively, to strive to be good with a renewed commitment to freedom of speech, civil discourse, and respect for all people, all ideas, and all beliefs.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant. He is also a consultant for profit organizations on governance, leadership, and management matters. He lives in Easton.

Responding to recent media inquiry on the amount of state funding to not-for-profit organizations, a spokesperson for Governor Moore said it is “a miniscule amount of the budget every year.”

Since then, another spokesperson for the Governor expressed more interest in pursuing answers to that inquiry and said he is working on gathering that information. 

He also cautioned that gathering the information is a labor-intensive process and antiquated technology systems are contributing to the delay.

Whatever answers are eventually made available, questions on transparency and accountability should not and very likely will not go away.

State Comptroller Brooke Lierman recently suggested looking at a new process that would help not-for-profit organizations to succeed, but also ensure that there is accountability that state funds are being spent appropriately. She also recently voted no on a proposal before the State Board of Public Works on a nine-year $300 million state information technology contract. Lierman expressed concern that the agreement risks undermining both competition and transparency in state government contracting.

In any event the matter of transparency and accountability issues are not new. 

In 2021, the bi-partisan Office of Legislative Audits in the Department of Legislative Services conducted a comprehensive performance audit to assess the state’s policies for advertising, awarding, and monitoring state-funded grants. 

The auditors concluded there was no central control agency authorized to issue statewide grant-related regulations, policies, and procedures, engage in grant oversight, and monitor state agency’s grant-related activities to ensure accountability with grant terms and conditions. 

The auditors recommended all state agencies use a centralized grant management system (GMS) to administer and track grant awards and related expenditures. They also recommended uniform financial controls. reporting requirements on conflict-of-interest prohibitions, documentation on grant expenditures and deliverables, and performance progress reports. 

In  2020, the Maryland Efficient Grant Application​ Council (MEGA Council) was established and charged with studying and making recommendations to the Governor’s Grants Office and the Department of Budget and Management regarding the management of grants across Maryland. 

Key focuses of the MEGA Council included developing recommendations on uniform grant application forms and financial controls, establishing standardized reporting requirements, recommending timelines for the adoption and implementation of these processes, streamline the grant application process, improve grant administration efficiency, and providing guidance to ensure compliance with state and federal requirements.

While all these proposed recommendations and others to be determined may merit serious consideration, there is one critical missing element – a commitment to timely action on next steps. 

That was affirmed last January by State Senator Clarence Lam, former Senate Chair of the General Assembly’s Joint Audit and Evaluation Committee. Senator Lam said addressing grant transparency and accountability issues have “fallen through the cracks.” He also said they should be addressed “sooner rather than later. 

The original deadline for the MEGA Council recommendations to be presented to the Governor and the General Assembly was July 1, 2024. Now the deadline is July 1, 2027. There is no guarantee that deadline will not be pushed back again. 

That means with no further delays, the earliest the General Assembly will be able to take action on any recommendations from the MEGA Council, as well as earlier recommendations from the Office of Legislative Audits in the Department of Legislative Services, will be in the 2028 legislative session that will convene in January 2028.

Earlier this year, difficult decisions were made on state spending levels and allocations in the state budget. They will almost certainly be the new normal for the foreseeable future.

Now is the time for the Governor, State Comptroller, and the General assembly to embrace the observations of John Kotter In his book A Sense of Urgency. Kotter wrote:

 “The single most crucial factor in achieving permanent and meaningful change is a continuous sense of urgency. A true sense of urgency occurs with an acknowledgement that action on critical issues is needed now, not eventually, or not when it fits easily into a schedule. Now means making real progress every single day. Urgent behavior is not driven by a belief that all is well or that everything is a mess but, instead, that the world contains great opportunities and great hazards.”

The Governor, State Comptroller, and General Assembly also can and should do this:

Take whatever steps necessary to expedite the current ongoing research on how much state money has historically been sent to not-for-profit organizations.  

Take whatever steps necessary to require every not-for-profit organization that receives state funds to demonstrate how their operations reflect Peter F. Drucker’s observation that “Not-for-profit organizations need management even more than business. Good intentions are no substitute for organization and leadership, for accountability, performance, and results.”

David Reel is a public affairs consultant, public relations consultant, and a not-for-profit organizational governance, leadership and management consultant who lives in Easton.

More than five hundred years ago, political observer and philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli wrote a timeless and thought-provoking message on resistance to change.

He wrote, “It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage, than introducing new ways of doing things. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old ways of doing things and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new ones.”

This observation is being tested by ongoing efforts in Maryland to change the rules relative to participation in and state funding of partisan primary elections. 

This issue is driven in large part by the increasing number of individuals in Maryland who have chosen to register to vote as unaffiliated, often referred to as independents.

In April of this year, more than 22% of registered voters in Maryland were registered as unaffiliated. That number was less than 21% in 2023. 

Another 2% of individuals in Maryland have chosen to register with a third party.

The bottom line is almost a quarter of the registered voters in Maryland are not registered as a Republican or Democratic voter and as a consequence, they cannot vote in primary elections.

One can assume this trend will not only continue, but also accelerate. 

In April of this year, more than 36% of new voter registrations, not changes to existing registrations, were unaffiliated.

In May of this year, five unaffiliated Maryland voters filed a lawsuit in Anne Arundel County District Court. They are working with an advocacy group — Open Primaries Education Fund (not to be confused with the Open Society Foundation, funded by George Soros).

The plaintiffs in the suit acknowledge political parties may have the right to exclude citizens from their primary elections, but it is unconstitutional for the state of Maryland to organize and pay for those elections.

They claim the only way the state can be in compliance with the state constitution is if the state Democratic and Republican parties fund their respective primary elections or if both parties allow all qualified citizens, regardless of their party affiliation, to vote in primaries.

The defendant in the lawsuit is the Maryland State Board of Elections, the state agency that manages primary elections.

An assistant state attorney general representing the Board of Elections has requested the Anne Arundel County District Court dismiss the lawsuit based on four claims.

One claim is that a lawsuit filed by only five taxpayers is insufficient to establish standing for such a challenge. 

Another claim is that the merits of the unaffiliated voters’ challenge have already been considered and rejected in two previous court decisions–one handed down by a state court and one by a federal court. 

The Supreme Court of Maryland issued a decision that “voters have no right under the state constitution to vote in the primary elections of a party to which they do not belong.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld closed primaries and a political party’s First Amendment right “not to associate” and therefore cannot be required to allow unaffiliated voters to participate in their primary elections. 

Complicating matters further on a judicial resolution on this matter is the opinion of a former senior voting rights attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). 

He has said the courts are often reluctant to depart from regular procedures on changing election laws and prefer to seek legislative consideration and action. 

While pursuing changes in the Maryland General Assembly is always an option, recent history is that pursuing open primary legislation in that arena has failed to get traction. 

In the 2023 General Assembly session, one bill was introduced in the Maryland Senate, and one was introduced in the Maryland House of Delegates, both on open primaries. 

Each bill only had one sponsor, which is a clear indication that neither bill had even minimal support in the General Assembly. 

As a result, neither bill was voted from committee, an essential step on the always challenging process to enact a new law or revise an existing law in Maryland. 

Also, no open primary legislation has been introduced in the General Assembly since then.

Going forward, I predict two outcomes on some form of open primaries in Maryland. 

I predict that in every court case, including any appeals to higher courts, the definitive decision will ultimately be that any changes to the election laws must be approved by the general assembly and signed by the governor.

I also predict that, without widespread public demand for any election law changes in Maryland, they will never be approved in the General Assembly and by the governor.

If my predictions occur, it will affirm that Machiavelli’s observation –“There is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage, than introducing new ways of doing things” is as relevant today as it was when he wrote it in 1513. 

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.

In the nonstop media coverage of discussions, deliberations, debates, and decisions in Congress, there are very few updates that include the words bipartisan cooperation.

Since Donald Trump was sworn into his second term, Congress has been deeply divided, with countless committee and floor votes decided along party lines.

The latest divide in the Senate is not on legislation, but on consideration of President Trump’s most recent slate of nominees for executive and judicial positions that require Senate approval.

Last week, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer insisted that consideration of these nominees is contingent on President Trump reversing certain federal spending cuts.

Despite this ongoing division, two recent proceedings in the Senate prove that bipartisan cooperation, while relatively rare, can occur.

It happened with the Senate’s Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, which has thirteen Republican senators and eleven Democratic senators.

There are striking differences between all the committee members, but especially so with regard to the chair and ranking minority member.

The committee’s chair is Rick Scott, a conservative Republican Senator from Florida  who is a staunch supporter of President Trump.

The committee’s ranking member is Elizabeth Warren, a progressive Democratic Senator from Massachusetts who is a frequent critic of President Trump.

Despite their differences, Scott, Warren, and their committee colleagues unanimously approved the Renewing Opportunity in the American Dream Housing Act of 2025, aka the ROAD Act.

The goals of the legislation include expanding and preserving e America’s housing supply, improving housing affordability, and increasing e oversight and efficiency of federal regulators, and federal housing programs. It is the first bipartisan federal housing bill in over ten years (a period that spans President Trump’s first term and President Biden’s first and only term.)

Following the committee’s unanimous vote on the ROAD Act legislation, Senator Scott said, “[Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren] and I don’t agree on almost anything, but here’s where a place where all Americans agree…Housing prices are too high, the supply too low, and regulations too much. So, we went to work a couple of years ago to get this done. Working together as a committee proves to the American people that we can get things done, and it requires, frankly, bipartisanship.”

Maryland Democratic U.S. Senator Angela Alsobrooks, a member of the committee, recently reinforced that message by telling a reporter for the Baltimore Sun, “It’s important for people to know that these kinds of efforts are happening …in a unified Republican government, that there are still ways that we have been able to try to work together.”

Senator Bernie Moreno, an Ohio Republican member of the committee, has said, “…we have to work together collaboratively to figure out how to make that dream (more housing) more accessible.”

There has also been bipartisan cooperation on other Senate housing legislation.

Maryland Democratic U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen has collaborated with Republican U.S. Senators John Boozman of Arkansas and Tim Scott of South Carolina on legislation to provide more information for military veterans on their home loan options.

Given the current environment in our society and in Congress, it is highly likely that bipartisan cooperation will be the exception, rather than the rule in the near future.

Going forward, bipartisan cooperation in Congress requires at least three key elements.

First, citizens need to relay their concerns and opinions to their members of Congress early and often.

Senator Alsobrooks has said it well. “Housing, I have to tell you, is one of the issues I have heard, and it resonates from every single corner of our state. Work on this particular piece of legislation … is informed by the many, many meetings that I have had with people across the state involving this issue about housing.”

Secondly, citizens need to remember that despite how strongly held their own opinions may be on any given issue, those opinions may not be widely shared by others.

When decisions are made in any legislative body, including Congress, an unwritten rule is that the minority will always have their say, and the majority will always have their way.

Accordingly, citizen positions should be based what is possible and not all that is wanted.

Again, Senator Alsobrooks said it well. “There are many, many things [from the Trump administration] that we are pushing back against. But we’ve also understood that, in order to get things done for our constituents, we’re going to have to find partnerships on the places where we can agree on things to get things done.”

Thirdly, citizens, members of congress, and presidents need to keep in mind that every two-years congressional election are held, and the results determine which political party will have congressional majorities for the following two years.

After those majorities are determined, every member of Congress should be held accountable for their commitment to and results on advancing partisan cooperation to get things done that will help bridge the current deep divides in our society.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.

Winston Churchill once said, “In times of great uncertainty, look for great opportunities.”

The Maryland state government has been and is operating in times of great uncertainty.

That is especially true when the general assembly and governor have a constitutional mandate to approve a balanced annual state budget and a new administration in Washington.

One great opportunity is the focus of a recent thought-provoking and impossible-to-ignore article in the Baltimore Sun.

The article headline was: “Maryland officials don’t know how much the state spends on nonprofits.”

The opening paragraph of the article says it all. “As Maryland funnels taxpayer dollars to nonprofits each year, neither state budget officials nor individual agencies can say exactly how much money is flowing, raising concerns about transparency and accountability.”

These concerns were affirmed by the chief of staff at the Maryland Department of Budget and Management when he told a Sun reporter, “Many nonprofits receive funds directly from agency grant programs, and we don’t track that centrally.”

Based on that reply, the Sun asked individual Maryland departments and agencies to provide details on the state money they send to nonprofits. The replies were varied and disturbing.

Some departments and agencies responded with specific dollar amounts, some responded that they needed time to determine the amounts and some large state departments responded that they could not provide the information. Those include the Departments of Health, Department of Labor, Department of Human Services and Department of Juvenile Services.

In January of this year, the governor’s director of communications told a Sun reporter that the state money allotted to nonprofits is “a miniscule amount of the budget every year.”

Is it really a minuscule amount?

David Brinkley was director of the Maryland Department of Budget and Management for eight years. Before that while serving in the state Senate, Brinkley was a member of the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee.

Brinkley suggested to a Sun reporter that he wouldn’t be surprised if around $1 or $2 billion of the state’s annual budget goes directly to nonprofits.

That begs the question — Is there a way for the state government to be more transparent and accountable with greater details on the matter of providing state funds to nonprofits?

The answer is yes.

In fact, it is already being done at the Governor’s Office of Crime Prevention and Policy.

That office has a system in place to identify the nonprofit recipients and the amounts of state funding they receive from that office.

The system was launched by Dorothy Lennig, the office’s executive director, who previously served at the House of Ruth, a nonprofit organization that provides domestic violence programs.

About her experience at the House of Ruth, Lennig told a Sun reporter said, “There was always interest in the nonprofit community about who else was getting money. And so, I thought, you know, this is the public’s money, and it should not be a secret where the money goes.”

Indeed. The public has a right to know that information, and the government has an obligation to share it.

Earlier this year, a majority in the general assembly and Governor Moore agreed on new taxes, tax increases, fee increases, budget cuts, and rainy-day fund drawdowns to address a projected state budget deficit.

How many of these changes could have been mitigated or revised with a thorough evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of nonprofits that receive state funds?

Going forward, I am NOT suggesting cuts in state funds sent to nonprofits.

After serving as a nonprofit President and CEO in four state,s including Maryland, I fully understand and greatly appreciate their role and value in our society.

I do suggest there are ways to help ensure state funding for nonprofits is done in such a way that results in a maximum return on investment from that state funding.

To accomplish this, we need a commitment from the governor and every member of the General Assembly to take timely action on implementing the following policies and procedures.

• Use the Governor’s Office of Crime Prevention and Policy’s transparency and openness program as a model for every state department and agency that provides state funds (and perhaps passes through federal funds) to Maryland nonprofits.
• Regular evaluations of all nonprofits receiving state funds to affirm that their staff and volunteer leadership embrace and follow Peter F. Drucker’s observation: “Not-for-profit organizations need management even more than business. Good intentions are no substitute for organization and leadership, for accountability, performance, and results.”

We need these policies and procedures well before debates, deliberations, and decisions on a new state budget in the 2026 general assembly session.

David Reel is a public affairs consultant, public relations consultant, and a not-for-profit organizational governance, leadership and management consultant who lives in Easton.

The Chesapeake Bay has a long history of challenges to its health and sustainability.

Its ability to not only survive, but also to thrive are threatened by: 

• Regular discharges of untreated wastewater from malfunctioning wastewater treatment plants in Baltimore.
• Runoff from farms, streets, parking lots, and development.
• Sediment discharges from Susquehanna River overflows at the Conowingo Dam. 
• Constantly fluctuating levels of native species.

If history is any indication, the prospects of meaningful action on any of these challenges is not promising. 

There is one constant on all of these challenges. 

When all is said and done about them, a lot has been said, but almost nothing has been done. 

Another serious challenge that has not received widespread attention has been the steadily increasing numbers of blue catfish in the Bay.

Blue catfish are not a new challenge. 

They first appeared in the Bay over fifty years ago after they were originally introduced into rivers on Virginia’s Western Shore. 

All expectations were they would remain in those rivers since conventional thinking was blue catfish prefer a freshwater environment. 

Defying expectations, blue catfish adapted to higher salinity levels more than anticipated. As a result, they successfully migrated into the Bay where their numbers continue to expand.

They were then and continue to be classified as an invasive species. Their numbers are not only increasing in the Bay, but they are also in every major river in Maryland.

Worse yet, they have no natural predators and are voracious predators of other native species such as blue crabs, clams, mussels, oysters, striped bass (rockfish), menhaden, American eel, and other economically and ecologically important species. 

Their appetites are so voracious they have been known to devour small blue catfish. 

Scientists who follow the Bay ecosystem have concluded that completely eradicating blue catfish in the Bay is not realistic. 

Instead, the goal is reducing their numbers in the Bay to a point where native species can at least coexist with them and not become extinct.

Efforts to reduce the blue catfish numbers have had relatively limited success at best.

Ongoing marketing efforts by Maryland’s Department of Agriculture to promote eating blue catfish to chefs, consumers, restaurants, grocery stores, and distributors have not made a dramatic difference in demand.

Apparently, many consumers view blue catfish as foul-tasting muddy water bottom feeders. 

In reality, many who have eaten blue catfish, me included, have found them to be not only edible, but also nutritious, healthy, and delicious.

Even with greater human consumption of blue catfish, more action is needed. 

One way to do that is to significantly increase the overall market for them.

That is the goal of legislation that was introduced in Congress earlier this month, the Mitigation Action and Watermen Support Act, or MAWS Act.

If approved by Congress and by President Trump, the MAWS Act is intended to increase blue catfish harvests for use as dog and cat food.

 

Achieving that goal could lead to greater harvesting of another invasive fish species in the Bay.

Snakehead fish are comparable to blue catfish in terms of being nutritious, healthy, and delicious, despite their unappetizing name and appearance.

Going forward there are encouraging developments on The MAWS Act.

It currently has bipartisan sponsorship with two Republican House members from Virginia — Rob Wittman and Jen Kiggans and two Democratic House members from Maryland — Sarah Elfreth and Steny Hoyer. 

Wittman, Kiggans, and Elfreth are also members of the Sub Committee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries of the House Natural Resources Committee. 

The MAWS Act also has support from The Pet Food Institute of America, whose members make the vast majority of dog and cat food purchased by an estimated 65.1 million households in America who have dogs as pets and an estimated 46.5 million households in America who have cats as pets. 

Their president and CEO recently said, “Pet Food Institute is proud to endorse the MAWS Act, … enabling pet food makers to use Chesapeake Bay blue catfish as a high-quality ingredient in complete and balanced cat and dog food,”

Hopefully, timely enactment and implementation of the MAWS Act will not only help the bay with two invasive species but also serve as a catalyst for less talk and more action from elected and appointed national, state, and local officials to address all the Chesapeake Bay Blues. 

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.

Following Richard Nixon’s election as President in 1968, John Mitchell, Nixon’s campaign manager, was asked by the media what to expect when Nixon assumed office.

Mitchell said prophetically long before Watergate, “Watch what we do, not what we say.”

Those words apply to many candidates for public office today.

The are at least two recent examples in Maryland.

Prior to leaving office after two terms, Republican Governor Larry Hogan announced that he had no interest in running for an open U.S. Senate seat in Maryland, formerly held by Ben Cardin.

Hogan went as far as saying his experience as a business executive and eight years serving as governor left him reluctant to serve in a deeply divided legislative body marked by lengthy and often bitterly partisan dialogue and decision-making.

Then, in February 2024, Hogan entered the Senate race, where he easily won the Republican nomination in a primary election but lost in the general election with 42.8% of votes cast.

In 2022, Wes Moore was elected as Hogan’s Democratic successor with 64.5% of votes cast.

Almost immediately following his election, Moore was widely viewed by political pundits in Maryland, Washington DC, and nationally as a potential presidential candidate in 2028.

To date, Moore has said early and often regularly he is not pursuing that goal.

Despite saying that, it has been most interesting watching media reports of what Moore has done in the political arena during his first term as governor.

Moore:

Spoke at the 2024 Democratic National Convention.
Campaigned for Kamala Harris in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Michigan.
Campaigned for Democratic candidates in Virginia.
Appeared on The View where Joyce Behar told him he looked “very presidential.”
Interviewed with CNN following his college commencement speech in southeastern Pennsylvania.
Attended an Aspen Colorado fundraiser hosted by Damian O’Doherty, a Maryland political operative and co-founder of Baltimore based KO Public Affairs.
He shared his thoughts on “bold, purposeful leadership” on a podcast with the NBA’s Golden State Warriors head coach Steve Kerr, and CBS Evening News co-anchor John Dickerson.
Delivered a keynote speech at the South Carolina Democratic Blue Palmetto Dinner.
Attended a fish fry hosted by Congressman Jim Clyburn who is widely credited for a Joe Biden 2020 primary campaign resurgence when that campaign was stalled.
Met with former political advisors to Barack Obama and Joe Biden to discuss a presidential path to the White House through South Carolina.
Spoke to hundreds of political insiders in South Carolina about his personal biography and on his record as Maryland Governor.
Spoke at an NAACP “Fight for Freedom” Dinner in Detroit Michigan.
Spoke at the Virginia Democratic Party’s Blue Commonwealth Gala.

Ultimately, all this travel and schmoozing by Moore may be for naught.

Next year, Moore must win both the Democratic primary election and the general election in Maryland.

The conventional wisdom that he will win both is far from a given.

In polling done earlier this year, Moore’s job performance approval fell to 55% from 61% from polling done in the prior month.

These poll results occurred before Moore signed into law a wide range of tax increases, new taxes, fee increases, and new fees that were approved in the 2025 general assembly session.

As I write this, Moore has an opponent in the 2026 Democratic primary and three potential opponents seeking a gubernatorial nomination in the 2026 Republican primary.

He will also have a Green Party candidate in the 2026 general election.

In the case of the Democratic and Republican primaries especially, but not exclusively, there may even be even more candidates deciding to run.

One wild card in the Republican primary is former Governor Hogan.

Despite his failed U.S. Senate run, a survey done after Hogan’s two terms as governor showed he had a 77% job approval rating that included an 81% approval rating with Democratic voters.

Hogan has not yet announced his decision on seeking a third term ,which the state constitution allows since it would not be a third successive term.

Assuming Moore is the successful Democratic candidate for governor, there is also the hard political reality that not meeting expected vote totals in elections that any candidate is expected to win can be an insurmountable roadblock on a journey to the White House.

Preeminent Maryland political analyst Len Foxwell has observed — “What we have seen in the past where prospective gubernatorial candidates and prospective presidential candidates have been derailed because of weaker than expected showings back home.”

Regardless of who is elected Maryland Governor in 2026, voters in that election cycle and every election cycle in Maryland would be best served if there was no longer a regular mismatch between what some candidates of every party affiliation say and what they do.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.