Eight Principles to Examine a Candidate’s Record – What Has He Done?
HOW TO EVALUATE THE CANDIDATES
CAMPAIGN PROMISES ASK FOR TRUST.
BUT A RECORD MUST EARN IT.
THE GRASSROOTS GENERAL-ELECTION ACTION SERIES – Step 4
Campaign promises ask voters to imagine the future.
A candidate’s record forces them to confront the past.
That is where the evaluation becomes real.
- A title may sound impressive.
- A biography may be polished.
- And a campaign may repeat a carefully prepared message until voters begin accepting it as truth.
But none of those answers the question that matters most:
What did this candidate do when power was already in that candidate’s hands?
Did the candidate lead when leadership carried a political cost?
Did the candidate exercise judgment when the easy answer was also the popular one?
Did the candidate accept responsibility when a decision failed?
And did the candidate use public authority to serve the people — or merely to preserve position, power, and political advantage?
Before the grassroots ask voters to trust another promise, it must examine the evidence already available…
Not the Title.
Not the Campaign Description.
But the RECORD!
PRINCIPLE 1: A TITLE IS NOT A RECORD
Candidates often present a list of titles:
Legislator. Mayor. Governor. Member of Congress. Attorney. Business owner. Military officer. Community leader.
Those titles may establish experience, but they do not tell voters how that experience was used.
Holding office is not the same as accomplishing something in office.
Length of service is not automatically proof of leadership.
And a polished biography is not a substitute for examining decisions.
The voter should ask:
- What authority did the candidate actually possess?
- Which responsibilities belonged directly to that office?
- What did the candidate attempt to accomplish?
- Which results can be documented?
- What happened when the candidate faced opposition?
- Did the candidate accept responsibility when a decision failed?
The point is not to search for a perfect candidate.
No candidate has a flawless record.
The point is to determine whether the record demonstrates judgment, consistency, courage, competence, and the ability to learn from mistakes.
PRINCIPLE 2: EXAMINE DECISIONS — NOT JUST POSITIONS
A campaign website may tell voters that a candidate supports lower taxes, secure elections, public safety, parental rights, responsible spending, individual freedom, or limited government.
Those statements describe positions.
The record shows whether the candidate acted upon them:
Did the candidate introduce, support, oppose, sign, veto, enforce, or ignore policies related to those promises?
Did the candidate maintain the same position when pressure increased?
Did the candidate explain a change honestly — or pretend the earlier position never existed?
A responsible evaluation should distinguish between:
- What the candidate said.
- What the candidate voted for.
- What the candidate had the authority to do.
- What the candidate actually accomplished.
- What consequences followed.
A quotation may reveal a belief.
A vote may reveal a decision.
A pattern of decisions reveals a record.
PRINCIPLE 3: CONSIDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE OFFICE
Voters should also be careful not to credit — or blame — a candidate for powers that did not belong to the office held.
A Legislator may introduce and vote upon laws but cannot usually enforce them.
A Governor may sign or veto legislation but cannot create every law alone.
A Member of Congress may support federal legislation but cannot personally control State policy.
A County Official, Mayor, School Board Member, Attorney General, or Secretary of State operates under a different set of constitutional and statutory responsibilities.
That distinction matters.
Candidates frequently claim credit for broad successes involving many people, agencies, or levels of government.
Opponents may assign blame just as broadly.
The grassroots should ask:
What could this candidate actually control?
What action did this candidate personally take?
What result can reasonably be connected to that action?
Without those questions, campaign rhetoric can make one candidate appear responsible for everything good — and another responsible for everything bad.
PRINCIPLE 4: RESULTS MATTER — BUT SO DOES THE METHOD
A candidate may point to a successful result.
That result should be examined.
But voters should also ask how it was achieved.
- Was the decision lawful?
- Was the process transparent?
- Were taxpayers treated responsibly?
- Were promises made to obtain support and then abandoned?
- Were citizens heard — or merely managed?
- Did the candidate build cooperation without surrendering essential principles?
- Did the candidate use authority carefully, or attempt to expand that authority whenever opposition became inconvenient?
Good results matter.
But the use of power matters too.
A candidate’s method of governing may reveal what that person will do when greater authority is entrusted to the next office.
PRINCIPLE 5: FAILURE IS PART OF THE RECORD
Campaigns naturally emphasize accomplishments and minimize failures.
Opponents do the reverse.
Responsible voters must examine both.
A mistake does not automatically disqualify a candidate.
Sometimes the More Revealing Question Is What Happened After the Mistake.
Did the candidate:
- Admit the error?
- Correct the decision?
- Explain what was learned?
- Blame staff members, political opponents, the media, or the public?
- Repeat the same conduct?
- Attempt to conceal the consequences?
Leadership is not demonstrated by pretending failure never occurred.
Leadership is demonstrated by accepting responsibility and responding with honesty, correction, and better judgment.
The grassroots should not hide every weakness in a preferred candidate’s record. A weakness that is acknowledged and explained honestly is far less damaging than one the opposition reveals after supporters have insisted it did not exist.
Defending a candidate does not require denying reality.
It requires placing the complete record into honest context.
PRINCIPLE 6: LOOK FOR PATTERNS — NOT ISOLATED MOMENTS
One vote, quotation, controversy, or mistake may matter.
But it should be examined within the larger record.
Was it an isolated decision — or part of a continuing pattern?
- Did the candidate repeatedly vote one way and then campaign another way?
- Did the candidate consistently support a principle even when doing so created political risk?
- Did the candidate change positions after receiving new information — or only after public opinion changed?
- Did the candidate’s public conduct match the standards demanded of others?
Patterns reveal more than political snapshots.
They show what the candidate is likely to do when the next difficult decision arrives.
PRINCIPLE 7: BUILD A RECORD THE VOTER CAN USE
The grassroots do not need to hand every voter a Fifty-Page Research Report.
It should prepare a factual and understandable SUMMARY containing:
- The candidate’s relevant background.
- The responsibilities of offices previously held.
- Several important accomplishments.
- Several important failures or controversies.
- Key votes, decisions, vetoes, executive actions, or public positions.
- Evidence showing whether campaign promises matched official conduct.
- Links to original documents and reliable sources.
- A clear explanation of why the record matters to families and communities.
The information should be concise enough to understand, but complete enough to defend.
A preferred candidate’s record should not be exaggerated.
An opponent’s record should not be distorted.
The same standard must apply to both.
That is how grassroots information earns trust.
PRINCIPLE 8: THE RECORD ALWAYS LEAVES FINGERPRINTS
Campaign promises ask voters for trust.
A record shows whether that trust has already been earned.
It reveals what a candidate did when the speeches ended, the pressure increased, the opposition arrived, and the consequences became real.
That is why the grassroots must do more than praise a preferred candidate or condemn an opponent.
- It must know the record well enough to explain the victories.
- It must be honest enough to confront the failures.
- And it must be prepared to place both into truthful context before the opposition controls the story.
A Candidate Does Not Need a Flawless Record.
But Voters Deserve an Honest One.
They deserve to know how authority was used.
- Whether promises became action.
- Whether mistakes produced correction.
- And whether a pattern of decisions demonstrates judgment, courage, competence, and responsibility.
A title may open the door.
A campaign promise may capture attention.
But The Record Is Where Leadership Leaves Its Fingerprints.
And once voters understand what the candidate has done, the next question becomes unavoidable:
What Principles Led That Candidate There?
Coming Next in The Grassroots General-Election Action Series…
Step 5 — EVALUATE THE PRINCIPLES.
WHAT DOES THE CANDIDATE BELIEVE?
Two candidates may cast the same vote while being guided by entirely different beliefs. The Final Step looks beneath the record to identify the governing philosophy that may shape every decision still to come.
by Linda Brickman
©2026 Linda Brickman All Rights Reserved.
IN CONCEPT, the candidate evaluation process, as presented in this article, is positive. Still, for most of us PRO-USA voting Citizens, with so many candidates in our present-day political environment, actually spending the time and energy to "complete the full 8-PRINCIPLE process and check every box is beyond realistic … and, IMO, is beyond what our Founders envisioned for We The People regarding how to elect our GOVT reps.
For me, my approach is to focus on the closing sentences of the article: Step 5: EVALUATE THE PRINCIPLES. IN WHAT PRINCIPLES DOES THE CANDIDATE BELIEVE?
To be specific — and to highlight whether any particular candidate or Party is TRULY AMERICAN — I investigate and try to determine whether that candidate understands, embraces, adheres to, protects, and promotes, FIRST AND FOREMOST, our Fundamental American Principles.
We all know of these principles: they are the ones, including our American Social contract, presented in our Declaration of Independence; the ones that define America as a NATION; the ones for which our forebears fought our Revolutionary War; the ones for which our NATION exists; the ones for which so many of our heroic military have fought and sacrificed so that our NATION and our successors may live. [Note: sadly, many of these principles have NOT BEEN incorporated into our Constitution, nor are they embraced by many of those whom we have elected.]
Relatively speaking, making our election choices based on this approach is simple and effective, and it is truly American.
Sadly, however, way too many of We The People are NOT even aware of such principles — our GOVT schools, infiltrated by so many anti-USA evil people, have worked tirelessly to brainwash these notions out of the heads of our Young Citizens — let alone applying them to elect at any and all levels of GOVT our representatives.
Shame on us.
However, IF we want to change this critical shortcoming, we must understand that nothing much in our OVERLY-tyrannical GOVT is going to change unless and until a GOOD SOLID MAJORITY of We The People decide to stop voting into office the many self-serving sociopath politicians, who make boatloads of empty promises to deliver the moon … but rather start voting much more heavily for those who will embrace our Fundamental American Principles.
According to our Founders, those 250 years ago, this responsibility — this DUTY — is up to We The People … and to us alone: we, collectively, hold Popular Sovereignty, we collectively are IN CHARGE, and we have our RIGHTS, but, first and foremost, we have our DUTIES.
MAGA & MAHA!