Voting for a President in 2008

My good friend, Tom Solari, wrote an article that gives a simple formula for choosing a President (or any politician). Here is the article in full:


Some years ago I figured out an easy way to resolve burning political questions and issues.

I decided that a simple determining factor regarding politics, politicians and political parties, is the concept that if you penalize production or reward non-production, you get a worsened economic situation, not a bettered one. It’s a natural law.

And if an economic situation gets bad enough, all the other issues and principles you care about will collapse under the weight of it. So we’ve got to get this one right.

If you had an NFL franchise and you wanted to win games, you would not fine your star running back every time he made a touchdown. Neither would you increase a player’s salary on the basis of most fumbles, dropped passes or missed field goals.

It’s just inherent common sense that good works and success be rewarded… if you want to improve things.

When a candidate or party promotes activities that run counter to this principle regarding rewards and penalties, I know they are either ignorant of this natural law and its importance or they don’t care what turmoil they create in pursuit of their own political aims and power. Either way, it’s extremely dangerous to society’s success and good health.


In general terms, the political philosophy most closely associated with violating this principle is socialism or, at its extreme, Marxist communism.

A well known Marxist principle is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Here you have an attempt to create a society where everyone is “equal”—no winners or losers—as in the old Soviet Union. There is also no individual freedom… and the leadership class is a bit more equal than others.

To ensure that no one has an unfair advantage—to housing, to jobs, to health care, education, travel, food—the government owns and controls it all, and bureaucrats decide who gets what and from whom.

If we have a lot of ability and work hard, we give. If we have a lot of need, we get… and large walls and fences are built to keep us from leaving the “worker’s paradise.”


Politicians in favor of this socialist system see themselves as a special breed of individual, ideally suited to the task of deciding things for the rest of us. They know what’s best.

I guess you could say that anyone who aspires to public office has this attitude to some degree—a sense of specialness—but that doesn’t make them all the same.

You can look at a person’s past record and see what was done. And you can look and listen to the candidate in present time and determine what he or she has in mind for us.

This can be tricky because the politician is trained to tell us, in a charming and convincing manner, what the polls have suggested we want to hear. So you can’t necessarily go by what is said.

But, if he says he will “help” the American people by expanding government programs—health care, housing, education—and the way we will pay for it is to raise taxes on “wealthy” people, this is a Marxist approach and a clear indicator of someone who will worsen conditions. It runs counter to the natural law. It is penalizing production and success, and rewarding mediocrity and failure.

Its purpose is to weaken the successful and the strong so they may be replaced, via an all-powerful government, with the politicians and their shadowy overseers, the ones who are behind this socialist movement.


There are lots of issues in an election—the environment, the economy, the war, abortion rights, gay rights, rights to life.

And there is a lot to like or dislike about the candidates, be they eloquent, friendly, handsome—old, nasty, slick.

And there can be emotional issues—party loyalties and animosities, such as loving or hating Bush or Clinton.

It’s not easy to make an objective, sensible choice in the whirl of such issues, opinions and emotions, but it can be done by applying this simple test of logic.

Ask yourself the question: will he or she reward success or reward failure? This effectively bypasses most of the other issues and takes the emotion and bias out of it. It is a completely objective test along the lines of: when dropped, do heavy objects fall down or up?


None are closer to perfection than you or I. In other words, the perfect candidate doesn’t exist. No matter the party or the candidate we vote for and support, we all must hold our noses to some extent.

Just recognize that the most socialist-inclined, high-taxing, big-government candidates and parties need to be defeated or we will be a giant step closer to a socialist super state.

I’m sorry if the correct choice, by this standard, might not be the cutest or most charming or clever. And it may seem that you are sacrificing some issues that are close to your heart.


If I lean toward Republicans and shy away from Democrats, it’s not because I was born a warmonger or was indoctrinated at an early age to favor the rich. I have made the choice based on what I have observed.

What I noticed, over the years, is that Democrat politicians, to an increasing degree, like to reward victims and punish success. As in the NFL example, this doesn’t make sense to me and nowhere in life have I found this approach to work.

Does the Republican Party need work? Absolutely. They drive me nuts some times, most recently in regards to the financial bailout, which is a socialist program in itself.

But at least, in terms of basic principles, they espouse the right idea—less government, more individual responsibility. They just need to have their feet held to the fire and be made to walk the walk that they like to talk.

Then there is the alternative party option.

Unfortunately, though there is much to like about certain alternative party candidates, a vote for them, right now, or a non-vote, is a missed opportunity to vote against the socialist candidate.

And as the left consolidates its power, it will eventually squeeze out all dissent.


This is what happens when a militant socialist party comes to power—as in the National Socialists of Germany (NAZI) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).

And then, more recently, there is Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, as he nationalizes industries and the press, while snuggling up to Castro and Putin. Do you think the voters in Venezuela really knew what they were getting when they elected this charming, blustering, U.S hating Marxist? I’m sure it seemed like a good idea at the time.

From the World Book Dictionary

“Communism and socialism are systems of social organization under which the means of production and distribution of goods are transferred from private hands to the government.

The classic difference between the two systems lies in the different means they take to establish themselves: communism emphasizes the impracticality of replacing the social order by any means other than force or outside intervention; the advocates of socialism seek to establish it by peaceful means, through legislation rather than force.”

Thanks for small favors.


Barack Obama is a nice looking, smooth talking community organizer, schooled and drilled in the classic methods of “peaceful” social-political takeover. He has been groomed and moved up the political ladder by radical socialist operatives, at home and abroad.

This is with the willing or unwitting help of the Democrat Party and their backers in the news media. The target is the Presidency of the United States, arguably the most powerful position
in the world.

From such a position of power, and with socialist Democrats also controlling the House and Senate, every aspect of government can be peopled with like-thinking operatives and the U.S. will, effectively, have been overthrown from within, just as the socialist agenda predicts.

As well, the socialist candidate and party will be least likely to support Supreme Court nominees who are strong constitutionalists. In other words, they will be able to alter the country’s bedrock policy to suit their social engineering and political ends.

And it is a fact that Barack Obama is an outspoken proponent of widespread “mental health” screening. That is a nightmare scenario, in terms of loss of individual liberty and sanity. It is right out of “Brave New World” and “1984.”

It’s looking like a duck, walking like a duck and quacking like a duck. Do you suppose it might be a duck?


Like them or not, we can at least slow this process down by voting for the Republicans. You don’t have to tell anybody. Though flawed, they are more apt to resist this headlong dash towards socialism, with its loss of our culture and our liberties.

Thus, buying a bit more time, we can continue to use all means possible to educate the populace to life’s laws and truths, so they will be more prone to nominate and elect sane leaders to replace the seriously tainted ones we are currently having to deal with.


I know there is a lot more to all of this than can be covered in one posting. I’m just trying to provide a shortcut answer, based on this one principle that I know to be true, in order to get us through this election, upon which so much is riding.

Reward success and you will get more of it. Reward mediocrity and failure and you will get more of that!

Vote sensibly!

Tom Solari

Click Here to Receive Updates

Leave A Comment...