I am a taxpayer in the Town of Easton. I am also the owner of two gasoline powered vehicles for which I currently pay almost $4.00 per gallon for regular grade fuel. The price per gallon of gas includes a 47 cent per gallon state gas tax and an 18 cent per gallon federal gas tax. Both taxes are collected to help fund the building and maintenance of roads that are used by everyone who drives vehicles, including drivers of electric vehicles. These electric vehicle drivers do NOT pay gas taxes.

I am very concerned to learn that at a recent Town Council meeting, it was announced that the town will be paying the electric bill for free electric vehicle charging stations. At that same meeting, Council member David Montgomery asked which line item in the current budget is to be used to pay for these electric bills. The response from the town manager was it is not a budgeted item.

After a suggestion was made to close the charging stations, no further action was taken after the mayor said she needed two months to see if there was a solution to convert the charging stations from free to user paid. As a result, taxpayers of Easton will be paying approximately $1,800 to Easton Utilities over two months for charging stations to be available for free to EV owners until the mayor finds a “solution” and Council acts on it.

This kind of government giveaway using taxpayer dollars for “free” programs and services is what I have come to expect from our government in Washington DC. We should not expect or tolerate it in Easton. We should never use tax dollars to subsidize those in a position to purchase electric vehicles. If they have the money to purchase and maintain them, they can and they should pay for the costs of operating them.

There are much larger questions that need to be answered to ensure the best decisions are made going forward on this matter by our elected officials at Easton Town Hall. Those questions include:

Why were the projected monthly power costs for the EV charging stations not included in the town’s budget, a budget that is subject to review and approval by the Town Council?

Why does our mayor need two months to determine if there is a way to convert the EV charging stations from free to user paid?

Why was this determination not researched by our previous mayor and/or town staff before the current EV charging stations were installed?

What will be the costs of converting the current EV charging stations to be user-fee based?

Can a conversion be done by retrofitting the current EV charging stations or must the current stations be removed and replaced?

If so, what will the projected costs to remove the old stations, purchase the new ones and install them?

Is there Council approved money for a conversion or replacement in the budget (proposed and Council approved)?

Why can’t the current EV charging stations be shut down immediately until these operational questions are answered?

Is it fair for Easton taxpayers to provide free EV charging stations for all EV owners regardless of whether they are Easton residents, Talbot County residents outside of Easton, Eastern Shore residents outside of Easton or visitors/tourists from the western shore and other points west and north of Easton who pass regularly through our community? Granted some of these visitors and tourists spend money in Easton, but the revenue they generate for the town government is not as much as one might assume. For example, none of the state sales tax collected by businesses in Easton is remitted back to the Town of Easton.

Why is the town offering a free EV charging station when there are other EV charging stations available in the area, including a supercharger at the Royal Farms on Ocean Gateway at Dutchman’s Lane?

Easton taxpayers deserve answers to all these questions before any further discussions, deliberations and decisions are made by the Town Council on this matter.

Anything less is a slap in the face to all Easton residents who drive gasoline powered vehicles; many of whom may be experiencing challenges in paying their rent, mortgage, property taxes, grocery bills, utility bills, health insurance bills, credit card bills, and bills for other basic living expenses.

It is especially disrespectful to those in Easton living on fixed incomes or modest incomes who are enduring an inordinate burden from high inflation rates on all their living expenses.

Now is the time to pull the plug on a poorly conceived, poorly evaluated, poorly executed, unfair, and unnecessary program.

David Reel is a public affairs/public relations consultant who serves as a trusted advisor on strategy, advocacy, and media matters who resides in Easton.

In the 2024 Presidential election, investigators, and prosecutors whose names will never appear on the ballot could have a huge role in shaping the final results of that election. One is Jack Smith, the Biden administration’s choice to investigate and prosecute former President Trump. In announcing Smith’s appointment, U.S Attorney General Merrick Garland failed to mention Smith’s mixed history as a prosecutor in high profile cases. 

Exhibit A is Jack Smith’s role as chief of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Unit when Bob McDonnell was indicted and convicted of alleged bribery. Prior to his conviction, McDonnell was a rising star in the Republican party having been elected as Attorney General and as Governor in Virginia; a politically purple battleground state. After his conviction, McDonnell’s future in politics was finished, despite a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn his conviction. In a recent interview, McDonnell said this about his experience with Jack Smith: “I think he’s just overzealous. I think he doesn’t do an honest look at the law… he’d rather win than get it right.”

Affirming McDonnell’s assessment was Smith’s experience when his office prosecuted U.S. Senator Robert Menendez for alleged bribery. That case ended in a mistrial when ten of the twelve jurors who heard the evidence presented, wanted to return a verdict of “not guilty.” Following the trial, Menendez said, “The way this case started was wrong, the way it was investigated was wrong, the way it was prosecuted was wrong.”

Smith struck out for a third time in the prosecution of John Edwards, a former U.S. Senator and former challenger to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for President in 2008. In this case, a jury returned a “not guilty” verdict on one charge and a judge declared a mistrial when the jury could not agree on five other charges. The Justice Department then dropped additional charges and never filed new ones.

Smith’s prosecutorial conduct so far on one Trump indictment is already raising doubts on his understanding of and commitment to one of the most basic principles of American criminal law — due process. Earlier this month, Smith’s team admitted in a court filing that they failed to turn over all evidence to Trump’s legal team as required by law. Worse yet, they claimed that they had done so when in fact they had not.

Smith is not the only prosecutor aggressively securing indictments against Trump. All this leads one to ask why and why now? 

Could it be the Biden re-election campaign has seen recent polling reports compiled by RealClear Politics. Those reports show the potential for a very close election rematch between Biden and Trump in 2024. Could it be the Biden campaign has launched an aggressive campaign to generate negative media reports designed to denigrate Biden’s current most formidable potential opponent? Could it be part of a strategy to use announcements on Trump investigations and/or indictments (four and counting) to divert public attention away from yet to be fully answered questions on alleged misdeeds by Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and other members of the Biden family? Those questions include, but are not limited to, ones on President Biden’s previous and/or ongoing involvement in Hunter Biden’s very lucrative business ventures with foreign governments and foreign businesses, some of whom are openly hostile to America.

One can ask — are Jack Smith and other prosecutors who are investigating and indicting Trump seekers of truth and justice; or are they political operatives focusing on derailing possible success of a targeted political candidate? 

Going forward there is a critical need for a thorough investigation to determine the motives, agenda, and the real goals of Jack Smith and others as an investigator and as a prosecutor.          

David Reel is a public affairs/public relations consultant who serves as a trusted advisor on strategy, advocacy, and media matters who resides in Easton.

 

Last month, the nation paid virtually no attention on the anniversary of the passing of a true American hero – U.S. Navy Vice Admiral James Stockdale. Sadly, many of those who may remember Stockdale will only recall his serving as Ross Perot’s running mate in Perot’s independent run for the presidency in 1992. More sadly, even fewer may remember Stockdale’s experience as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War.

In 1965, after his plane was shot down over North Vietnam; Stockdale spent over seven years as a prisoner of war; four of them in solitary confinement. His windowless cell was three feet by nine feet and had a light bulb that was on around the clock. Every night his captors shackled Stockdale with leg irons despite his having nowhere to go. Throughout his captivity he was beaten and tortured on a regular basis. Despite that torture he never divulged military secrets. His enduring that torture ultimately led to less torture of his fellow POWs as their captors realized it was not working. Released from captivity in 1973, Stockdale was unable to stand upright and was barely able to walk. Following his release, he was asked how he survived. He replied stoically — “You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end—which you can never afford to lose—with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.”

Three years after his release Stockdale received a Medal of Honor, our nation’s highest military honor for “conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty.” It solidified Stockdale’s position as one of the most highly decorated officers in Navy history. In addition to the Medal of Honor, he received two Distinguished Flying Crosses, three Distinguished Service Medals, four Silver Stars and two Purple Hearts.

Fast forward to Stockdale’s post POW experience as Perot’s running mate. It was then and remains today a very ugly blemish in American political history. The mainstream media and entertainment world attacked Stockdale without mercy. Their thinly disguised contempt of him intensified after his performance in a Vice-Presidential candidate debate. Unprepared and woefully inexperienced as a public speaker, Stockdale’s opening remarks were “Who am I and why am I here?” He never answered those questions. At one point he asked the debate moderator to repeat a question because he did not have his hearing aid turned on. His entire debate performance was, in a word, dreadful.

Following that debate, Stockdale was widely parodied by the mainstream media as a buffoon, a portrayal from which he never fully recovered.  

The low point of his sordid treatment was a post-debate Saturday Night Live skit. It was intended to be funny. It was not. It was cruel, demeaning, and shameful. 

It was not until 1994, when comedian Dennis Miller put Stockdale’s unmerited and unrelenting criticism in the proper perspective. Miller said “Now I know (Stockdale’s name has) become a buzzword in this culture for doddering old man, but let’s look at the record, folks. The guy was the first guy in and the last guy out of Vietnam, a war that many Americans, including your new President [Bill Clinton], chose not to dirty their hands with. Stockdale had to turn his hearing aid on at that debate because those expletive animals knocked his eardrums out when he wouldn’t spill his guts. He now teaches philosophy at Stanford University, he’s a brilliant, sensitive, courageous man. And yet he committed the one unpardonable sin in our culture: he was bad on television.”

Miller did not mention Stockdale’s teaching at Stanford was a homecoming of sorts. A graduate of the Naval Academy, Stockdale also earned a master’s degree from Stanford in International Relations.

I am not suggesting Stockdale would have performed well had he served as vice president. I will say he certainly would have brought more gravitas and leadership skills to that position than at least three others who were or are one heartbeat away from the presidency — Spiro Agnew, Dan Quayle, and Kamala Harris. 

I will suggest we should never forget his experiences in North Vietnam and never forget his experiences in the American political arena. As a society grappling with maintaining some semblance of civility in public discourse we must disavow, reject, and rebuff any effort by any candidate, elected official, political party, the media, and the entertainment world to engage in character assassination to score political points and win elections. 

David Reel is a public affairs/public relations consultant who serves as a trusted advisor on strategy, advocacy, and media matters who resides in Easton.

 

For many years, miners relied on canary birds rather than fellow miners to detect colorless, odorless carbon monoxide and other toxic gases in coal mines that could sicken or even kill humans. While mechanical sensors have replaced canaries, the term “canaries in the coal mine” is still a metaphor for an early warning system to alert people of impending catastrophic outcomes if they do not take immediate action.

As we approach the 2024 presidential election, Republicans, and Democrats need to monitor and heed the warnings of “political canaries”.

In this commentary, the focus will be on canaries in the suburbs of southeastern Pennsylvania. With all due respect to Maryland, often branded as America in miniature, this designation applies only in terms of geography, not in terms of presidential politics. While Republican George H.W. Bush won Maryland in 1998, the current edition of the Almanac of American Politics identifies Maryland as “solidly blue.” By contrast, Pennsylvania, our neighbor to the north is a purple bellwether state and will be one of the key presidential battleground states in 2024; just as it was in 2016 and 2020. In 2016, Trump was declared the winner in Pennsylvania by a margin of 0.72 %, and in 2020, Biden was declared the winner in Pennsylvania by a margin of 1.17%.

The most important battleground region in this battleground state includes four suburban counties in southeastern Pennsylvania that surround the City of Philadelphia. Voters in these counties (often referred to as the “collar counties”) are fiercely independent with minimal loyalty to either major political party in their presidential voting decisions.

Going into the 2024 presidential election, below are the canaries in the coal mine early warning signals in the collar counties for the Democrats.

One is recent polling results from coefficient, a national polling firm with a B+ grade in pollster ratings from FiveThirtyEight. The B+ grade is based on coefficients record on historical accuracy and their polling methodology.

co/efficient reports that 59% of collar county voters believe the country is on the wrong track. 43% approve of Biden’s job performance, 48% are not sure he is mentally or physically up to facing a crisis, and only 33% want him to run again.

These polling results also show weak 2024 presidential election support in the collar counties among two key groups in the traditional Democratic base: young voters and voters of color. Among other voters of color (Hispanic and Asian) Biden’s approval in the collar counties is 50%. It is worth noting this poll was conducted before the most recent media reports of serious allegations of criminal activities by the Biden family. While some may say these allegations have not yet been and may not be proven, perception is reality in politics. With Republican control of the U.S. House there is no question they will do everything they can to keep this issue alive through the 2024 election cycle, especially if Biden is the Democratic nominee.

Another signal is polling results showing that in a one-on-one contest between Biden and Trump OR DeSantis, only 50% of collar county voters say they would back Biden. While this level of support for Biden is enough to defeat Trump or DeSantis in the collar counties, that is not enough to provide enough votes to win the state.

Outside of the collar counties another canary that should concern the Biden campaign is the results of the May 2023 Democrat mayoral primary election in the deep blue City of Philadelphia. In that election, a traditional Democratic candidate handily defeated a progressive Democratic candidate by almost 20,000 votes. Clearly, Democratic voters in Philadelphia will not blindly support a Democrat whom they conclude is too far to the left.

Republicans also have their own canary in the coal mine warning signals in Pennsylvania.

Last year, a far-right wing Republican candidate for governor received only 41% of the statewide general election vote. In the collar counties the far-right Republican candidate received a high of only 39% of the vote in one collar county and a low of only 29% of the vote in another collar county. Any 2024 Republican presidential viewed (either fairly or unfairly) as a far-right conservative will most certainly lose the suburban collar counties in Pennsylvania as well as in similar suburban regions in other battleground states.

The bottom line is both Democrats and Republicans need to carefully monitor all the political canary warning signals in battleground states between now and the 2024 presidential election. More importantly, they must be willing and able to take the needed actions to result in candidates, campaign platforms, and campaign messages that resonate with a majority of voters in those states in 2024.

David Reel is a public affairs/public relations consultant who serves as a trusted advisor on strategy, advocacy, and media matters who resides in Easton.

Given the current state of uncivil discourse in politics today, one is reminded of a quote attributed to President Truman –“If you want a friend in Washington … get a dog.” No matter who said it, it is especially appropriate in today’s political environment. It is an environment characterized by deep divisions, vitriolic rhetoric, polarization, and demonizing opponents. This is especially the case with regard to rulings rendered on social issues by the U.S. Supreme Court.

There was a time when two Court Justices with opposite views of the world — Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Antione Scalia — regularly agreed to disagree without being disagreeable.

Ginsberg was a hero for progressives based on her unwavering “Living Constitution” approach of constitutional interpretation. Her written opinions reflected her core belief that that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the context of current times, even if such interpretation is different from the original interpretations of the document.

Scalia was a hero for conservatives based on his unwavering “Originalist” approach of constitutional interpretation. His written opinions reflected his core belief that all statements in the Constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding, and that understanding can only be changed by amending the actual wording of the constitution.

Ginsberg and Scalia first served together as judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. While serving there, they developed a high level of mutual respect that transcended their different approaches on court decisions. While there, they also developed a deep and abiding friendship that led to vacationing together, attending operas together, shopping for antiques together and having an annual New Years Eve dinner together with their spouses and children. They were traditions they maintained while serving on the Supreme Court.

Nothing reinforced those high levels of mutual respect and regard for each other more than when President Clinton was making his only Supreme Court nomination after Justice White announced his retirement. Initially, Clinton did not give serious consideration to Ginsberg. His two top prospects were Harvard Law professor Lawrence Tribe and New York Governor Mario Cuomo. Before making a final decision, Clinton reportedly asked Scalia (who was already serving on the Supreme Court) — “If you were stranded on a desert island with your new court colleague, whom would you prefer, Larry Tribe or Mario Cuomo?” Without hesitation, Scalia replied “Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”

Clinton did nominate her, and she was confirmed quickly and easily by the Senate. As a result, Scalia and Ginsberg were serving together again and once again agreed to disagree without being disagreeable.

The best example of that occurred in 1996 when the Chief Justice chose Ginsburg to write her first majority opinion as a Supreme Court Justice. It was an opinion striking down a male-only admission policy at the Virginia Military Institute. Prior to Ginsberg finalizing her majority opinion, she sent a working draft to Scalia for his review and thoughts. Even though Scalia strongly disagreed with her views on this issue (and filed the only dissent on her final majority opinion); Scalia replied to her working draft with constructive criticism. Ginsberg later observed that his input allowed her to fine tune her thoughts and make her opinion stronger. She also once said, “I disagree with most of what he said, but I loved the way he said it.” Scalia returned the compliment by saying, “Call us the odd couple. She’s a very nice person. What’s not to like? Except her views on the law.”

Such mutual admiration did not mean they compromised on their core principles.

They rarely agreed on decisions that resulted in close votes at the Supreme Court.

Their mutual respect and deep friendship were not for show or media attention. It was then, and is today, an inspiration and a model for us regardless of whether we view Ginsberg as an icon or Scalia as an icon. As a society, we desperately need a renewed commitment to civility in our world, even if it does not result in or depend upon friendship. Such a commitment could and should lead to a society where we acknowledge that those with whom we disagree are not our enemies. That includes elected officials at all levels of government, appointed officials at all levels of government, candidates for elective office at all levels of government, and fellow Americans. We can stand firm on maintaining our principles AND engage in robust, civil and mutually respectful dialogue on public policy issues.

David Reel is a public affairs/public relations consultant who serves as a trusted advisor on strategy, advocacy, and media matters who resides in Easton. 

As the list of announced and likely-to-announce Republican candidates for the 2024 Presidential election grows longer every day, many political pundits and observers are predicting (and some are hoping) that Donald Trump will successfully repeat his divide and conquer nomination strategy from 2016 to win in a crowded field of candidates. In doing so, he will secure a rematch in a general election between himself and President Biden.

I do not agree with that prediction.

I predict Donald Trump will not be the 2024 Republican presidential nominee.

I predict Joe Biden will not be the 2024 Democrat presidential nominee.

Below is my reasoning for the Trump prediction. To follow will be another guest commentary with my reasoning for the Biden prediction.

My Trump prediction is made despite recent polling numbers indicating Trump’s relatively strong support with Republicans (50% in some polls). I suggest this is the result of an extremely loyal base of Trump supporters who are sometimes referred to as MAGA Republicans. They fervently believe Trump deserves an opportunity to avenge the outcome of his 2020 re-election effort that was, in his view and in their view, the result of widespread voting irregularities and outright voter fraud.

While the power and influence of MAGA Republicans has been and is still a significant force to be reckoned with in Republican primary elections; I predict it will wane over time. I predict it will be replaced by power and influence shifting slowly, but steadily, to Republicans whom I refer to as “pragmatic Republicans.” These pragmatic Republicans fervently believe in the following two observations on success in politics: the first was made first by William F. Buckley and was often repeated by Ronald Reagan; Recruit and support the most conservative candidates … who can win. The second observation was made by Morton Blackwell; You cannot enact public policy unless you first succeed in getting elected to wherever they enact public policy.

I predict these pragmatic Republicans will work diligently to help ensure Republicans everywhere connect the dots relative to Donald Trump’s post-presidency role in recruiting and supporting Republican candidates who lost in high profile and winnable 2022 midterm elections.

That list of losing candidates is a long one.

It includes Republican U.S senate candidates in the following national battleground states — Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and New Hampshire; as well as Republican U.S. Senate candidates in Alaska, Nevada, Connecticut, and Vermont. Pragmatic Republicans know with a net pickup of just any two of those winnable seats the Republicans would now have a majority in the U.S. Senate for the first time since 2014.

At the same time, widely expected significant Republican gains in the mid-term U.S House elections never met expectations. While the GOP did achieve a majority in the House for the first time since 2014, that majority is currently a razor thin four-seat majority that is subject to change at any time with special elections to fill unexpected vacancies.

GOP losses were not limited to high profile congressional races. In Maryland in 2022, the Trump endorsed candidate for governor lost by a two to one margin. In down ballot Maryland General Assembly races, Republican held seats dropped by 3 (from 42 to 39) in the House of Delegates and dropped by 2 (from 15 to 13) in the Senate. In Pennsylvania, the Trump endorsed Republican candidate for governor lost by 17 points; and the GOP lost 12 seats in the state House of Representatives, shifting control of that body to Democrats for the first time in 12 years.

Pragmatic Republicans will not forget Trump’s criteria for his support of select candidates in all those losing elections. They know it was not based on objective evaluation of candidate electability, but on his subjective evaluation of the degree to which candidates demonstrated their support for his stolen election claims.

Last, but not least, pragmatic Republicans are finally accepting (albeit grudgingly) that mail-in voting must be more aggressively utilized by Republicans going forward; despite Trump’s vehement opposition to it and urging GOP voters not to use it in 2020.

I predict the mission of pragmatic Republicans will be nothing less than a crusade using whatever legal and proper steps necessary to help ensure the Republican voters are fully aware of the connection between Trump’s 2022 campaign efforts and the 2022 election results.

Based on all the above, I predict Donald Trump will not be the Republican nominee for President in 2024.

Next up, my guest commentary with my reasoning for a prediction that Joe Biden will not be the 2024 Democrat presidential nominee.

David Reel is a public affairs/public relations consultant who serves as a trusted advisor on strategy, advocacy, and media matters who resides in Easton.