It was reported a few days ago that about 14% of us have received a COVID vaccination and just over 7% of the U.S. population have received two COVID vaccine shots. Clearly, there is a long way to go.

Just imagine if in this nation we right now had around 88,000 locations and 300,000 or more people trained to deliver medication to individuals. How much better might it be if these well trained and experienced people in these places were already delivering nearly 200 million doses of regular influenza vaccine to patients every year.

If this kind of system existed in the nation, wouldn’t you want to see it better utilized for the COVID vaccine?

Well, it does exist. We call the places pharmacies and the people pharmacists. Yes, in addition to the flu vaccines they administer, they fill almost 4.5 billion prescriptions every year. And, doing this requires a network of suppliers and distributors that call on pharmacies once, sometimes twice, a day to supply them with medicines of all kinds.

As stories are told about trying to get appointments, of long lines, of waiting lists too long to even accept more people, I keep wondering: why are governments building parallel systems to administer the COVID vaccine?

One of the strangest approaches I heard about is occurring in the nation’s Capital. The District of Columbia officials actually distribute the vaccine according to zip codes of their choosing. Friday is an “open” day for all zip codes so citizens can log in and play a lottery-like challenge to get a vaccination.

Imagine if this odd plan applied to asthma medication or heart medications…..sorry, we only fill prescriptions for this medication if you live in certain zip codes…strange, isn’t it!

Then, there are the positive – sort of – stories of how so many people don’t show up for a government run scheduled appointment that pharmacists have been known to come out into their store and ask people if they want a vaccination because the unused vaccine for the day would have to be destroyed.

Here, where I live in Maryland, I am getting invited with some frequency to travel for a couple of hours to an amusement park where I could wait in a long line for my vaccination.

Perhaps the policy makers had it right when they initially spoke of using retail pharmacies to provide vaccinations. Most people live near a pharmacy. The pharmacy receives medical products everyday through a proven system involving thousands of trucks and many thousands of trained people.

Do we really need to use stadiums, amusement parks and the nation’s military for distribution?

With many millions more doses of the vaccine delivered than there have been shots administered, we really should take a new look at how best to get the other 93% of the population their second shot, not to mention getting people their first shot. I think having the government in the middle of the distribution business is not helping. We have an incredible structure in place to receive medications from manufacturers and deliver those medications to the nation’s local pharmacies. Let’s use the system built over decades and allow the government focus on the distribution system they own and operate so well: the Postal Service.

Craig Fuller served four years in the White House as assistant to President Reagan for Cabinet Affairs, followed by four years as chief of staff to Vice President George H.W. Bush. Having been engaged in five presidential campaigns and run public affairs firms and associations in Washington, D.C., he now resides on the Eastern Shore.

Today, we are on the verge of seeing Congress pass legislation providing economic assistance for individuals and companies. The debate continued so long that the close observer most likely suffered from viewer fatigue.

But, there is something different going on. A bipartisan group of Senators worked at working together. And, by doing so, they achieved something many had forgotten possible. Namely, the number of Senators backing a relief package exceeded 51 and that meant the Republican leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, faced the possibility of having any one Senator call for a vote on the measure, something allowed by the Senate rules.

None of this just happened by accident. David Brooks tweeted that he was on a conference call discussing these developments with the the No Labels group (www.NoLabels.org) where negotiations on the $900 billion stimulus legislation were being discussed. He described a level of bipartisan enthusiasm not recently witnessed.

The measure does not provide liability limiting elements that Senate Leader McConnell said any bill must have before he brought it to a vote. But, the power of 51+ Senators caused a rare retreat by Leader McConnell. Bipartisanship and process finally worked to favor action over inaction.

It is being suggested that Leader McConnell moved off his objection because Senators in Georgia facing reelection are being hammered by voters for no stimulus package. This is surely true, but it had been true for some time. None the less, the political realities along with the vote count provided a path for McConnell’s endorsement.

Doing the big things that need to be done will require more not less of this. But, as the stimulus package moves to final passage, there is a sign of hope in the governing process.

Craig Fuller served four years in the White House as assistant to President Reagan for Cabinet Affairs, followed by four years as chief of staff to Vice President George H.W. Bush. Having been engaged in five presidential campaigns and run public affairs firms and associations in Washington, D.C., he now resides on the Eastern Shore.

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

While some debate whether Albert Einstein is the original source of this quote, the power of the message in these time in which we live is beyond question.

Increasingly, people are asking how to get out of the mess we witness in Washington, D.C. While the balance of power in the Senate will not be fully known until next month with the special elections in Georgia, there will clearly be deep divides in the legislative branch giving the newly forming Biden administration significant challenges.

Can we rise above the course debate of the past several years?

I hope so, and I think so. The will of the people seems to show a strong preference for “getting something done,” as opposed to constant and frequently petty opposition for the sake of improving political positioning. However, if we are to find a more constructive path, the elected officials in Washington need more positive experiences around collaboration. Over time, the acts of compromise and negotiation have been eclipsed by less productive behavior. Simply put, relationships have ruptured and need to be repaired. All parties need to find a better, more productive path.

Just where might that be found? Well, tackling the nation’s infrastructure needs may be one area where agreement can be found. This is something about which there is agreement at the federal level as well as at other levels of government where infrastructure needs are appreciated. If focus on something with broad support can be done early in 2021, then perhaps the positive experience will bring potential agreements around more challenging policy debates.

While reasonable, this becomes possible only if behaviors really do change!

First, we the people as voters need to make clear that the same old approach is absolutely not deserving of our support. Nothing motivates elected officials more than the threat of losing voter appeal.

And, elected officials must be held to a higher standard.

It needs to be made clear that as an elected official, if you focus your time on delivering soundbites on cable news, then you are not serving people.

If you refuse to seek agreement through debate and compromise, then you are not serving the people.

If you think more about blocking action on important measures than finding a path forward, then you are not serving the people.

If you put partisanship ahead of policy making, then you are not serving the people.

And, on this last note, lest one thinks that partisanship is a safer place to be, the most recent Gallup survey asking about which party people identify with found that less than a third of voters identified with either Republican or Democrats. “Independent” is actually the place more people define themselves today than with either party.

There is a path forward, but it surely is not based on doing the same things that have been done year after year in Washington. We do need positive action on a host of issues confronting the federal government and as voters we really do need to demand results from both parties!

Craig Fuller served four years in the White House as assistant to President Reagan for Cabinet Affairs, followed by four years as chief of staff to Vice President George H.W. Bush. Having been engaged in five presidential campaigns and run public affairs firms and associations in Washington, D.C., he now resides on the Eastern Shore.

Again, the voters have spoken and one candidate won the necessary Electoral College votes sufficient to be elected President of the United States.

But, former Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Kamala Harris did more than that. They won millions more votes than an incumbent President. And, they did it campaigning as people who, if elected, would represent all of the people. Indeed, by they way they campaigned, they can now govern in a more unifying way.

So, after this hard fought election, I think we all may benefit from a pause to consider our hopes.

I do hope President Biden can govern in a way that brings the country together.

I hope that process starts now with a collaborative transition leading to a smooth flow of power to a new party and a new President.

I hope Republican leaders will realize that one reason millions more voted for the candidate in the other party is out of a desire to see an honest, fact-based approach to containing the coronavirus.

I hope Democrats and Republicans find common ground on initiatives related to the coronavirus, rebuilding our economy in safe and effective ways and rebuilding the reputation of the United States abroad.

I hope thoughtful conservative Republicans will work to rebuild a party that stands for things that are positive and constructive and lives up to our greatness as a nation.

And, I hope the Republican Party finds a few leaders among the ranks who can lead it back to compete around ideas and policies that impact all people.

I also hope that pundits, commentators and news personalities will leave the gotcha approach behind while holding accountable those in public office to really address facts and issues in ways that benefit us all.

It has been a long time since voters wanted to push reset on a presidency. While George H.W. Bush was not  reelected, he had served in the White House for twelve years when voters opted for a change. Thus, not in forty years has an individual serving in the White House for four years been turned away. May this be a message and the beginning of a process that involves our better selves in actions that address the real needs of all Americans.

Craig Fuller served four years in the White House as assistant to President Reagan for Cabinet Affairs, followed by four years as chief of staff to Vice President George H.W. Bush. Having been engaged in five presidential campaigns and run public affairs firms and associations in Washington, D.C., he now resides on the Eastern Shore.

The final debate of the Presidential campaign….and, the winner is? Kristen Welker, the moderator! She actually managed to moderate a discussion of sorts.

The key question to ask, after watching the debate or hearing the news reports, are you more inclined to vote for Donald Trump?

Going into the debate, I know of no poll suggesting the momentum had shifted. Polls tell us where voters are at the moment; and, at the moment a decisive majority of voters have trended to Joe Biden.

All the Trump campaign can do is wake up this morning and seek opportunities in key states.

However, to create an opportunity for Trump, voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Iowa, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Florida and even Texas would have to had seen something about President Donald Trump to encourage them to support his reelection. Only time will tell whether this final debate made a difference in these key states.

There is a good deal of talk about how 48 million people have already voted. Truth is, that really is not all that relevant. Those voters had already made up their mind and it is highly unlikely that anything in last night’s debate would have moved them in a new direction. For most people, the discussion probably reinforced their views going into the evening.

What is important, is how many people go out and vote this weekend. If the numbers are high, it would suggest that people waited for the last debate and then decided. I would not be surprised to see early voting growing.

One other challenge for President Trump. While millions of people watched the debate and the follow on press coverage, millions will also watch President Trump’s performance this Sunday evening on 60 Minutes. And, thanks to the decision by President Trump to release his video of the interview, we know how that will go. And, there is no chance the 60 Minutes version of the interview will be better than the Trump video. What is clear is that most of the interview was a verbal battle over whether the President has a health care plan and on just how damaging Hunter Biden might be to his father’s campaign.

Health care is an important issue, but after watching the 60 Minute interview, Lesley Stahl will repeatedly remind people that the President has no health care plan. And, to the extent the President spends time trying to advance a Hunter Biden story, he is, in my opinion, dwelling on a topic few care to understand and even fewer will be moved by when it comes to their vote. Even on the President’s video, on neither topic did he look particularly strong.

So, the two major media events in the final days of the campaign stand little chance of moving the needle much when it comes to the electorate. In the end, the outcome surely hinges on something as old as elections themselves, voter turnout. If you care about how this election turns out, go out and vote!

Craig Fuller served four years in the White House as assistant to President Reagan for Cabinet Affairs, followed by four years as chief of staff to Vice President George H.W. Bush. Having been engaged in five presidential campaigns and run public affairs firms and associations in Washington, D.C., he now resides on the Eastern Shore.

I first learned that James A. Baker III would likely be President Reagan’s chief of staff just prior to the 1980 election. After the election and his announcement, my friend Mike Deaver told me Jim Baker wanted to see me in the Washington D.C. Reagan Transition office.

The meeting lasted minutes, but put me on a path for which I will always be grateful.

While we had met weeks earlier, he really knew me through Mike Deaver, slated to be the deputy chief of staff. He also knew me as a Californian who had been in the Reagan world since my days at UCLA when Reagan was governor. In the rush that is a presidential transition, I offered a California/Reagan lineage that helped Jim Baker as he was building a White House staff.

Craig Fuller and James Baker

The discussion was pretty straightforward. He told me he heard I’d be willing to join the White House staff. He had four different positions on the staff in mind and needed to juggle some things to figure out just which one would be the best fit.

So, he said, find a place to live in Washington, D.C.

This was late November 1980. I found a place to live, but a month later it still was not clear what position would be “best.” In December, he came to me and said the best position looked to be one reporting not to him but to Ed Meese who needed someone that could be counted on to fairly run the Office of Cabinet Affairs. He said it would be a great fit and we’d be working closely together.

Asked what I thought, as a UCLA political science graduate all of 29 years old, it sounded pretty good!

A few days later, in a meeting even more brief, Ed Meese, whom I knew well, asked if I would accept the position. I did. He got up to leave and said, let’s fly back to California in a couple days and we’ll discuss just what it means.

What it came to mean was full engagement for the next eight years in the White House, first as secretary to the cabinet and then as chief of staff to Vice President Bush.

Throughout the entire time, interaction with Jim Baker was a daily, sometimes hourly reality.

This first-hand view allows me to share that the quality of the book by Peter Baker and Susan Glasser about Jim Baker is remarkably accurate over the period of time we worked together. And, the willingness of not only Jim Baker but those who know him so well to let down the shield that often hides public figures, provides plenty of new and valuable light on the developments Jim Baker affected and the times that impacted his life.

It has been said that political power in Washington is like a bank account and you are either making deposits to build the account or taking out withdrawals to deal with challenges. There is no doubt that Jim Baker was a master at gaining power. There is no doubt that he focused on getting things done without always being burdened by philosophical debate.

What I saw, often delivered with remarkable cunning, was an individual determined to serve Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush the best way he knew how. Not even they always agreed with him. But, unlike many, he gathered strong people and cultivated a wide range of leaders not for his personal aggrandizement but to fulfill a mission.

The book just released is a remarkable and worthy study of a time and an individual that seem to have come together at a propitious moment in our nation’s history. His beginnings could not have predicted his impact in Washington. And, events could not have found a more able protagonist in the shaping of two presidencies and our nation’s role in the world.

Craig Fuller served four years in the White House as assistant to President Reagan for Cabinet Affairs, followed by four years as chief of staff to Vice President George H.W. Bush. Having been engaged in five presidential campaigns and run public affairs firms and associations in Washington, D.C., he now resides on the Eastern Shore.

There was a morning during a meeting of President Ronald Reagan’s cabinet when a senior White House assistant for political affairs asked to be recognized. When his turn came to speak about the policy question before the President, the aide began to explain the political consequences of making a decision on the subject. President Reagan let him speak his mind and then politely thanked him before saying, “Well, I think we’ll just figure out what the right thing to do is and let the politics take care of itself.”

When it comes to the awesome responsibility of nominating and confirming the next United States Supreme Court Justice, that notion speaks volumes.

My view, politically correct or otherwise, is that we elect a President for a four-year term. We don’t suggest to that individual that we really only want them to make important decisions for 3 ½ years of the term. Thus, the President has an obligation to consider candidates and to nominate a qualified individual for the Supreme Court when there is a vacancy. Politics, elections, pandemics really should not deter a President in doing what is right.

Then, members of the United States Senate should do, however they may individually determine it, what’s right. Each Senator has the right to judge if the qualifications of the nominee are sufficient to confirm the nominee. Their ultimate vote in favor or in opposition of a nominee should be based on qualifications. Of course, the reason behind a vote is up to the individual Senator.

The right thing to do is to allow the process to go forward.

But, the politics are, in my view, not what many may believe.

Should President Trump nominate an individual and see that person confirmed by the Senate before the election, he may actually cause himself and Senate Republicans in close races political harm.

Here’s why…

The process of nominating and confirming a new justice to the Supreme Court is not likely to change the views of voters already firmly decided for whom they will vote.

However, there are among Republican voters a number who hesitate about reelecting Donald Trump, yet they fear a shift in the balance of the Supreme Court during a Biden administration. Providing Trump with one final appointment to the Supreme Court would reduce the anxiety among these voters should they determine to crossover and vote for a change in the White House.

Conversely, should the President and the Senate place one more conservative justice on the Supreme Court, Democratic voters, not already firmly committed, would certainly be more likely to engage in the election process to vote for a President who would select justices more in line with their thinking in the future.

And, there is one additional reason for a moderate voter to favor at least a nomination. While it is possible a Trump victory would cause him to pull back a nomination to the Supreme Court who is not yet confirmed, it is unlikely. And, a Trump nomination coming after the election where no constraint of an election is a factor would not likely yield the same type of nominee.

I think President Obama was right to place an individual before the Senate as a nominee to the Supreme Court nine months before an election. I believe the same is true for President Trump even this close to the election. What the 100 members of the United States Senate decide to do and when they decide to do it is anyone’s guess.

In all of this there is one very important reminder, elections matter. In fact, three of the central actors in the drama that will play out in the weeks ahead are up for reelection: President Trump; Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell; and, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham. Let’s hope they figure out what is the right thing to do and then they can let the politics take care of itself.

One more thing…VOTE! It is the single best way to express yourself on this and so many other issues.

Craig Fuller served four years in the White House as assistant to President Reagan for Cabinet Affairs, followed by four years as chief of staff to Vice President George H.W. Bush. Having been engaged in five presidential campaigns and run public affairs firms and associations in Washington, D.C., he now resides on the Eastern Shore.

Editor’s note: Listen to this topic discussed by Al From and Craig Fuller during From & Fuller on Thursday in the Spy

Local news organizations have handed us a series of muckraking stories involving the Maryland Environmental Service, its former director, the state legislature and the governor. Seems pretty exciting. Also, might be all wrong.

Stories would have us believe that an individual – someone I have known for a long while –received a payment as he left one high-level position in State Government for the Maryland Governor’s office. The Governor and his staff seemed shocked…never heard of it…never approved it. Then we learn that the Board of the entity granting the post-employment payment did so because they thought the Governor approved of it.

Some story, right?

Well, consider this…the Maryland Environmental Service Act from the 1990s set up a “corporate” “instrumentality” of the state in order “to assist with the preservation, improvement, and management of the quality of air, land, water, and natural resources, and to promote the health and welfare of the citizens of the State…”

In every sense, about three decades ago, the State of Maryland decided to contract out to a corporation established by the state a broad range of environmental services. The Act specifically states: “The Service (MES) has all powers necessary for carrying out the purposes of this subtitle, including the following rights and powers set forth in this section…to have perpetual existence as a corporation.”

Anyone can find a very lengthy description of this in the Maryland Code, Natural Resources 3-102 through 3-130.

The Act separates the Maryland Environmental Service from state personnel systems and calls for it to establish its own. The Act even specifies methods by which people in state government will move into the new entity. The Act grants full authority to MES to set its budget, asking it to send a copy to the state Budget Office for information. The MES is to design its own strategic plan. Additionally, MES was granted authority to borrow money through bonds for projects making it clear these and other financial obligations were the responsibility of MES.

Indeed, the State of Maryland wisely decided that a more private sector approach to the large scale environmental services needed throughout the region would be better than allowing the functions to be part of a state agency.

Turns out, when Governor Hogan appointed Roy McGrath as the director of MES, the new director took his role, responsibility and independence seriously. During his tenure, the functions contracted for by the State of Maryland were performed and then MES successfully won contracts from other jurisdictions who chose to “contract out” for MES services.

Growth was fairly dramatic and the capabilities of MES expanded to better address the needs of entities throughout the region, including the State of Maryland.

Had Maryland decide to contract with a private corporation serving the region and then had the head of the organization been selected to go into the Governor’s office, few would have chosen to examine how the company compensated an outgoing leader.

Somehow, the current state officials who do not to understand the Maryland Environmental Service Act want to treat MES like the state agency it was specifically designed not to be by the Act.

Why then, the drama.

Well, most boards today would reward a very successful leader with a post-employment package. And, most corporate entities would not release the terms of such a package. For some reason, MES elected to do so. However, in doing so, they have allowed for comparisons with other organizations employing over 1,000 people with hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues. Such a comparison could fairly suggest the director of MES is underpaid in the marketplace not overpaid.

Then there is the question of the Governor’s role. Honestly, he doesn’t have one beyond the power to appoint certain people. MES exists as independent from his authority. The MES board sets and determines compensation matters. If the Governor has a view, he is certainly entitled to it, of course.

Lastly we come to the intent of the outgoing director. I have not discussed my commentary with him; however, based upon the facts, he would be just in exploring a payment recognizing his success as the head of a multimillion dollar enterprise that has successfully pursued its mission during his tenure. And, knowing that the decision by the MES board to grant a post-employment payment had or would be made, the incoming chief of staff would be faulted for not advising the Governor of the fact.

Our saga could end here but for the fact some key decision makers elected to ignore their authorities and those of the Governor.

Reportedly, MES board members sought to know if the Governor “approved” of the payment before they made a decision.

Asked to confirm the Governor’s approval, the former MES director and current Chief of Staff indicated the Governor was aware and that this action was “anticipated.”

So, the MES board sought something that should not have been given (i.e. the Governor’s approval of a post-employment package) and when told he was aware mistakenly took that for approval.

As for the Governor, there have been three phases: first, no comment; second, there was no approval or knowledge prior to the MES Board’s action; and, three, I knew nothing.

Well, the Governor could be excused for not knowing the timing of the Board’s action, but text messages recovered seem to suggest “knowing nothing” is not a good place to hang one’s hat.

What has been missed in the breathless reporting of this story is the very sound reason for setting up the Maryland Environmental Service as the state legislature did in the 1990s. Also missed is that the structure demands much of the top leader of the organization to balance environmental challenges with financial challenges and considerable public needs. To find someone who actually flourishes in such an environment is without a doubt exactly what the sponsors of the Maryland Environmental Service Act must have hoped for with the Act’s passage.

So, the Summer Sizzler is more a Shakespearean tragedy where a high price is being paid by the one individual who did the most to advance the mission of the Maryland Environmental Service.

I surely will be asked why I took the time to look into this. Yes, in no small part because Roy McGrath is my friend. But, also because if we allow people who engage in important work on behalf of citizens to bear the brunt of criticism and judgements from those who elect not to understand the facts, then we will have a difficult time recruiting people with a record of experience and good ethical judgement to these roles.

What we need is less bureaucratic agency think and more executive leadership. In this battle, executive leadership is not winning.

Craig Fuller served four years in the White House as assistant to President Reagan for Cabinet Affairs, followed by four years as chief of staff to Vice President George H.W. Bush. Having been engaged in five presidential campaigns and run public affairs firms and associations in Washington, D.C., he now resides on the Eastern Shore.