Two months ago, Stuart Pittman, chair of the Maryland Democratic Party, issued a news release with the following headline: “Maryland Democrats Launch First Ever ‘Contest Every Seat’ Campaign to Challenge Republicans in Every Corner of the State.”

The release includes the following: “’ Contest Every Seat’ is an ambitious new effort to recruit Democrats to run in every race in the 2026 elections, from every General Assembly district to every county council seat. “This initiative responds to the urgent threats posed by Donald Trump and Republicans. Their attacks on our freedoms, our jobs, the economy, and basic rights provide a significant opportunity for Democrats to fight back, build our party, and win in places we have been losing ground, not just where it is already blue. Contest Every Seat’ is a coordinated effort to recruit candidates from every corner of the state and give them the tools, training, and network they need to win in a general election. The initiative is led by the Maryland Democratic Party, in partnership with and coordinated with representatives on the ground in the 18 counties where Democrats have not always run a full slate against Republicans.

Additionally, we have partnered with organizations like ‘Run for Something,’ ‘Contest Every Race,’ and ‘Emerge Maryland’ to supercharge our efforts. We believe that voters in rural and small-town Maryland will be looking in 2026 for an alternative to the Republican Party’s anti-family, anti-worker, and anti-farmer policies. That’s why Democrats in every Maryland county are talking to their neighbors about getting on the ballot. They want to fight for economic justice and dignity. We will contest every seat.”

Not surprisingly, Governor Wes Moore has endorsed the “Contest Every Seat” campaign. He has said, ‘Contest Every Seat’ is about bringing everyone with us. Voters will see that while Washington is more divided than ever, we are showing people there’s a better way forward. I urge any Democrat who wants to make a difference in their community to consider running for office—the stakes are too high to have anyone on the sidelines. The ‘Contest Every Seat’ campaign is already underway, with recruitment focused on areas where Republicans have gone unchallenged for too long. The Party is calling on Democrats from all backgrounds to run for office.”

While every political party has the right (some would say an obligation) to recruit candidates for every office, why has this campaign been launched now, reportedly in response to decisions and actions by the Trump administration and a Republican Congress?

What is not in the news release is that Republicans and Democrats in the Maryland General Assembly and on Maryland County Councils have no decision-making power to approve or reject legislation in Congress or to approve or reject decisions made by a presidential administration. Conversely, in Maryland, the General Assembly and the governor have significant power.

With 102 Democratic members and 39 Republican members in the State House, and 34 Democratic members and 13 Republican members in the State Senate, Democrats currently hold long-time supermajorities that are extraordinarily durable and secure. As a result, they say the Republican members in the legislature will always have their say, but the Democratic members will always have their way.

That is the case not only in legislation, but also in votes to override gubernatorial vetoes.

Democratic supermajority veto overrides were standard operating procedure for Republican Larry Hogan’s vetoes during his two terms as Governor.

Apparently, for the Maryland Democratic Party, the entrenched one-party control of the State House, State Senate, and regular control of the governor’s office is not enough.

That said, current “Contest Every Seat” messages for Democratic candidates challenging Republican state legislative and county town council candidates may not work as expected.

Messages linking President Trump and Republican  Congressional actions to Republican state legislative candidates and county council candidates in Maryland are not likely to be widely accepted by the 1,035,555 Maryland voters who voted for Trump in 2024, the most votes he received in Maryland in his three campaigns for the presidency.

These messages may also not be widely accepted by Maryland voters, as 49% of respondents in a recent University of Maryland, Baltimore County poll believe Maryland is on the wrong track.

Both groups of voters and perhaps significant numbers of others are more likely to respond positively to very different messages from Republican state legislative candidates and county council candidates.

One message could remind voters about new state taxes, state income tax increases, new state fees, state fee increases, and withdrawals from the state’s “Rainy Day” reserve fund, which were approved by Democratic supermajorities in the 2025 General Assembly session without Republican support.

A second message could suggest to voters that Democratic supermajorities in the 2026 General Assembly session approved more new taxes, more income tax rate increases, more new fees, more fee increases, and more withdrawals from the state’s “Rainy Day” reserve fund, again without Republican support. This scenario is not a given. It could occur next year and in future years based on current projections for major shortfalls in state revenues, increases in state funding, and a state constitutional mandate for a balanced state budget.

Either way, the most compelling message to targeted Maryland voters could be that Maryland Democratic elected officials already have more than enough power, and now they want even more. That conclusion can best be addressed by voting for Republican candidates in state legislative elections and for county council elections.

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.

 

Last month, November 22 was the 62nd anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK).

To this day, there are countless unresolved “what if” questions about that day in Dallas.

What if JFK had not gone to Dallas in the first place? What if JFK’s schedule had been limited to a speech at an indoor banquet hall and did not include a slow-motion open-roof ride through downtown Dallas that had more challenges for security and safety? What if he was shot by multiple assassins who were recruited by a conspiracy and not by a lone deranged assassin?

All we know with absolute certainty is that President Kennedy died that day, and Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) was immediately sworn in as his successor.

That raises a post-assassination “what if” question. What if JFK had lived and disapproved or reversed previous decisions on additional American ground troops in a civil war in Vietnam?

Obviously, we will never know with absolute certainty the answer to that “what if” question.

We can make some informed assumptions based on presidential historian Robert Dalek’s book, “An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy 1917-1963.” Dalek includes a riveting review of deliberations with, and decisions made by JFK on the recommendations of his foreign policy and military advisors during the “Cuban Missile Crisis” in October 1962.

This crisis began when JFK was told that the former Soviet Union was placing nuclear missiles in Cuba that were capable of destroying huge sections of the continental United States.

For thirteen days, there was widespread public uncertainty and fear that, after a decades-long cold war between America and the former Soviet Union, this crisis could lead to a nuclear war.

JFK immediately convened a series of meetings with the Executive Committee of the National Security Council, whose members included his National Security Advisor, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Treasury, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy Sr., JFK’s brother and closest advisor.

During these meetings, military action was given serious consideration by all the attendees who shared a commitment to contain and even reverse the former Soviet Union’s efforts since the end of World War II to expand communism throughout the world.

Some suggest the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis resulted in part from an American Central Intelligence Agency scheme to recruit, train, and fund a group of Cuban exiles to invade Cuba and overthrow Fidel Castro’s communist government. That invasion was a spectacular failure and was a worldwide embarrassment for the Kennedy administration.

Despite that failure, JFK’s advisors discussed a military campaign that included bombings of the Soviet missile sites and air bases in Cuba, followed by another invasion of Cuba.
The October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis ended after thirteen days when an unexpected offer came to JFK from Soviet Union leader Nikita Khrushchev. The Soviets would remove missiles in Cuba if America removed U.S. missiles in Türkiye (then known as Turkey).

JFK viewed the request as reasonable and immediately expressed his support for it. With one exception, his advisors did not and continued to push for immediate military action in Cuba.

JFK’s Secretary of Defense endorsed the military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff plan that included steps needed before an attack on Cuba, as if attacks were inevitable and ready for final approval.
JFK’s National Security Advisor said, “I think we should tell you … the universal assessment of everyone in the government who’s connected with alliance problems—if we appear to be trading the defense of Turkey for the threat in Cuba, we will face a radical decline.”

Undaunted by this almost universal opposition to a diplomatic compromise, JFK rejected military strike recommendations. Instead, he directed his brother Robert to relay his agreement to Moscow, even though RFK strongly opposed Khrushchev’s compromise.

In doing so, Kennedy exercised his authority as President and Commander in Chief, much like Abraham Lincoln did during the American Civil war.

At one cabinet meeting, Lincoln presented his proposed change in strategy to help end the Civil War and asked his cabinet members to vote on it. Lincoln reported there were seven no votes and his yes vote. He then said the yes vote has it.

In a review of Dalek’s book, Fred Kaplan, a veteran observer of American foreign policy, wrote that Dalek failed to address significant differences between JFK’s and LBJ’s presidential leadership experiences and leadership styles.

Kaplan suggested JFK grew increasingly unhappy with “expert advice” from his foreign policy and military advisors. As a result, going forward, he would make final decisions by trusting his own instincts.

Kaplan also suggests LBJ had limited dealings with those advisors, was insecure about trusting his own instincts and was overly deferential to his foreign policy and military advisors, many of whom were holdover Kennedy appointees who had firmly held views that American military action was the best way to address the spread of communism in the world.

In any event, both Dalek and Kaplan agree that if JFK had lived, he would have withdrawn American ground troops already in Vietnam and not approved future deployments.

I agree and believe such a decision could have avoided at least 58,000 American deaths with a deeply flawed war strategy, nationwide antiwar protests, including one where four students were killed and nine wounded. Vietnam also ignited a lack of trust in our national government to do the right thing the right way — a feeling still held by many in American society today.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant and a consultant on governance, leadership, and management matters exclusively for not-for-profit organizations. He lives in Easton.