smart move...Reagan did tried to do the same thing with Lewis Lehrman's help, it was called Citizens for America and was supposed to have supporters in each Congressional District. I think I still have the brochure. If they Organizing for Obama looneys are a version of the CDRs does that make for former CFA's Hitler Youth?

hehehe, Nice try Cardinal, but no. You've mastered the dialectic. Most conservatives will put the message above the messenger. Don't forget to hang your "Obama Esta Es Tu Casa" sign on your house on Tuesday..;)

oh oh! Time to cash in my "gun show" coupon...

On its own, this sounds so good. I wish Bush had used his bully pulpit more to get Social Security privatized and to get oversight before it was too late on Fannie and Freddie.
I will, in the meantime, work for my own kind of change in 2010 from a liberal, radical congress to a more conservative one. I hope I have some company in my efforts.

leftists are no different than us and if you don't remember the infatuation we had with Reagan...and still have in many quarters then you don't have a good memory. I'm not going to lie I'm just as bad. Citizens for America was all about Ronnie, as was Citizens for Reagan another outfit as well as Citizens for the Defense of the Republic all were Ronnie centered. I make no apologies for being involved with them. Your hatred for leftists is understandable but blinds you to the similarities between the two sides.

Your article just goes to show that a Cuban can spot a communist a mile away. Vladimir Lenin envisioned a "centralized group" of party members (Democratic Centralism) who would hold discussions" by all party members before party policy was adopted, however this just served as a way to keep a firm hand on all party members. Hmm, I wonder what the controllers of these party loyals will discuss: "Which should we nationalize first? The banks, or the oil companies?"

Obama's trying to be all things to all leftists who put him in office while implementing a scarier-than-hell socialist agenda under wraps ("I'm not a socialist" he says). Like all good marxists, he changes the language to make it mean something other than what it's supposed to mean.

Like fifo did; but at least give fifo credit for a measure of honesty: he told us that the snitches/committees were for the defense of the revolution (to keep him in power). Obie, on the other hand, has just as nefarious a motive, but dresses it up with gift of gab and redifines the terms and succeeds in selling it to the 52% ignoramuses who voted for him.

Frankly, I have no fear. I don't think his Organizing for America has a chance: It will require WORK and EFFORT from his supporters -- the same leeches who put him in office so that HE would give them houses, jobs, healthcare, and money without any WORK or EFFORT by them.

Keep the change, baby.

To the Cardinal:
You say that leftists are no different from us. Baloney.

Your rational explanation that Reagan supporters did the same thing reminds me of John Le Carre's moral equivalence between the KGB operative and the CIA operative. (I'm talking about when the CIA was still pro American)
There is one difference and it makes all the difference. The KGB operative was working for thugs, murderers, and torturers who wanted to keep doing their dirty work for a murderous regime. The CIA operative was working for a country that wanted to spread liberty at home and abroad and try to stop the spread of the thugs, etc.
Reagan was trying to stop the spread of communism, and get the government off the backs of American taxpayers and give individuals more freedom. Obama makes no bones about his agenda. It is to have the government take on more and more and leave workers and taxpayers with a lot less of their money and dependent on the government more and more. This is taking away individual freedom and it must be fought against or we will be doomed to become another Cuba.

Cardinal, I read your "rational" posts that try to show us how we are just like the left. I am finding them a bit tiresome, if you want to know the truth. Principles matter more than style or technique. I state the obvious, but I wonder if you see this. What side are you on?

Honey - do you know why Clinton was president for 8 years? Because conservatives lost their heads. We spent too much time chasing down Arkansas State Troopers for info, trying to solve Vince Foster's murder and went a tad overboard with Monica Lewinsky. I would argue that the Monica thing was justified to an extent (obstruction of justice) but overall we just lost it - looking for evil everywhere when in fact it was just politics.

Both sides play politics it's just the way of the world. You obviously have not been intimately involved in a campaign or worked for a politician - and that's fine. In politics, just like in any business you look to promote what sells. When you have charismatic pols (JFK, Reagan, Obama) you sell the person. When you have wonks (Gore, Gingrich) you sell ideas. It's all about branding. I did not vote for Obama and don't plan to ever, but as someone who has been in the game more than once I have to tip my hat and say "Well played."

Attacking a charismatic politician and damaging him/her is hard - nothing ever stuck to JFK, Reagan or Clinton. They took their hits but kept coming back. Where you attack a charismatic pol is where he/she is usually weakest - the inconsistency of his/her views that keep their unwieldly coalitions together. You have to divide and conquer - it's a herculean task, but the most effective method.

Your obsession with Obama the man plays into his strength and you will not win that battle.

I believe that principles matter but ultimately, unfortunately they don't often carry the day. There is a right, a left and a big ass middle. You win by shaving off as much as that middle as you can without selling out. I am an Adam Smith/Jeffersonian Liberal - really fancy way of saying I'm kinda conservative and kinda libertarian.

Ditto on Honey's comments to Cardinal! I've observed the same thing. Your (Cardinal's) moral equivalencies are a recipe for failure. We've lost the battle once we create those equivalencies. Using your rationale, there is no difference between the Cuban Government and that of the US (as Honey stated differenciating between the CIA and KGB). In an earlier post you excused Panetta's choice at CIA by equating him to Tenet, yet failed to mention that Tenet worked for a Democratic Senator and was selected to be CIA Director by a Democratic President. Bush's mistake was to trust him in a bi-partisan attempt. Once again, Honey has made a legitimate observation, and your reply seems to indicate you're just some sort of practical 'political operative' that knows what it takes to win. The critique still stands, and as she implied, the comments are very irritating. To be honest, you sound more like a liberal Democratic 'mole', than you do a conservative Republican.

all i'm talking about is strategy, tactics and operations and where i learned the importance of it was in Newt Gingrich's first book which most of you can't name without googling it. You won't find someone brimming with more ideas than Newt but he understood that ideas alone don't win elections. You need a governing philosphy - you need to know what you believe and what you are trying to accomplish but to hope that those beliefs and ideals are enough to convince people to vote for you is unrealistic. Sorry to burst your bubble but welcome to the real world. I once was an idealist too, but knocking on doors, putting up signs, drafting press releases, putting together position papers, preparing debate talking points and doing all that crap made me realize that I need something more to get people to vote for the candidates that I worked for. You won't find a wonkier Republican than Jeb but his campaign machine was a marvel - it could steamroll anyone. We took a cheap shot and hit from Chiles but the lesson was learned. I'm sorry that you don't like to hear what I'm saying but just because you disagree with me doesn't make me a leftist - I may be jaded but I don't sell out.

sorry but my Panetta/Tenet comparison was meant to convey the following. Pannetta may screw up and he probably will - so let him screw up. Don't say that we need an experienced hand when Tenet, an experienced hand, messed things up royally. Clinton appointed him but W never held him accountable - he even gave him a medal!!! WTF!?!?!? Thousands die and HE gets a medal?!?! We have more than ample opportunity to rip Leon when he messes up, save your ammo till then - if you start ripping him now the media will just say "well he's getting criticized by conservatives like he always is."