Subscribe to Canada Free Press for FREE

Debate-Debate -- Simply Explained

The Biden-Ryan VP Debate was only the beginning of a Larger Debate

By —— Bio and Archives--October 14, 2012

Comments | Print Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

After the Joe Biden—Paul Ryan Vice-Presidential debate a few days ago, we saw yet more debate. Seems that everyone has his/her take on what everyone just saw and, as usual, there was much from the pundits telling everyone what really happened. Some pigeonholed Biden’s antics as mere buffoonery while others went as far as saying that Biden was “unhinged” and suffering from some kind of mental problem. Others said that this was what Biden was supposed to do to achieve the goal of solidifying the Democrat base in an attempt soften the effects of the previous debate between Mitt Romney and President Obama where one was left wondering just how easy it must have been for Romney to debate an empty chair.

Back to the VP debate, several times during the sniggering and grinning by Biden, I kept seeing visions of Nikita Khrushchev slamming his shoe on the table and his pronouncement, “We will bury you.” In a sense, I found myself holding my breath, waiting for something similar from Biden. To have done so, even in some parallel but minor way, would have immediately revealed Biden’s true nature. Both Biden and Khrushchev appear in the end as socially unruly men, men who continue then and now as those who live their own little world.

It took a few days to come to a true conclusion about what took place at the VP Debate. It was an accumulation of errors on the part of Biden and the debate moderator. I still wonder why Ryan did not stop suddenly at some point and, after the attention was fully upon Ryan, that Ryan did not look at Biden and say, “We’ve been covering some very serious points here that matter to the American people. I wonder why you think this is all so funny…” This would have put Biden on the defensive and the spotlight would focus on him and his laughing outbreaks.

I also wonder why Ryan did not make it clear to the moderator that her job was to preserve order in the debate, not to question him about his responses. Since then, it has been learned that Obama was a guest at Radditz’ wedding. More info is here: The moderator, therefore, was far from impartial and suddenly appears as a “useful tool” of the Left. No wonder she interrupted Ryan more than a dozen times during the debate.

After all the back-and-forth, everyone with an opinion and viewpoint, I remember the old saying I heard when growing up on the Amazon in Brazil: “There is more checker playing off the board than on the board.” The pundits have the job and it is their calling to form opinions and share them with others. But what becomes apparent is that even the pundits do not often agree. Sure, they are not actually in opposition but their individual emphasis on this or that point of what everyone saw in the debate would make one wonder if they not trying to mold future debates and, by limiting the topics of debate to “what is really and truly important,” they want to restrict those topics to what the pundits seem to believe are what really matter to We the People. Please do not get me wrong here, though. I am not implying that what the pundits say is nothing more than mutterings in a crowd. Much of what they say is similar to a stream that has nuggets of gold but one has to go search of it. In fact, some provided insight in areas that are unique and not commonly known but you had to dig it out.

With all this, there is one element of the debates, both Presidential and VP, that is too often neglected. This is what motivated Obama and Biden but this is only to touch the tip of the proverbial iceberg. What many people forget is that the Left’s major influence is Saul Alinsky, the author of: Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. Random House. 1971. ISBN 0-394-44341-1. If one considers the tenets of this book, it is easy to see where the Left’s impetus comes from and when one considers who are involved in Alinsky’s teachings, then it is also easy to see where they are coming from. More info on Alinsky is here:


Hillary Clinton wrote her college thesis on Saul Alinsky. Apparently, she stated that the Alinsky rules were not actually workable but the thesis was so cloaked in terminology that was popular with upper crust academics that one finally concludes that she admired Alinsky. In fact, Alinsky even offered Hillary a job! More on Hillary and Alinsky is here:

But, Hillary was not the only one who read/studied Alinsky and his brand of Marxism. Here are a few on that list that are close to Obama that are adherents to the philosophy of Saul Alinsky, including Barack Obama himself:

Barack Obama, Bill Ayres, Jeremiah Wright, Frank Marshall Davis, Midwest Aademy, New Party, ACORN, Alice Palmer, Anita Dunn, Van Jones, Bill Frist, David Axelrod, George Soros, Tony Rezko, Louis Farrakhan, Vernon Jarrett, Reggie Love.

More info is here:

Remember that Rules for Radicals was dedicated to Lucifer by Alinsky.

See here:
The “Rules” can be given as follows, in abbreviated form:

RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.

RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.

RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.

RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.

RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.

RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.

RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.

RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.

RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.

RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Source of the above Rules may be found here:

Why and how do these rules apply to the Debates: It is because Biden was demonstrating the application of Rule 12, Rule 5 and Rule 6: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” and “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” and “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”

Rule 12 and Rule 5 may be refined to what we saw Biden do with Ryan: Isolate and Ridicule. And Rule 6 was what Biden was giving his people, what they loved to see and enjoy. For people who are union-oriented, seeing someone being shouted down was revealing Biden as one of their own.

Actually, given what we saw of the VP debate, Ridicule seemed to be order of the day for Biden. It was designed to be more than mere ridicule, however. It was designed to show social disregard to Ryan, a man who Biden apparently believes to be unqualified to be the Vice-President and, therefore, deserved no respect.

Actually, some may wonder if Biden actually has any self-respect. Does he know how he was coming across to the viewers? Does he actually care? I believe that he was on a greater mission, to Isolate Ryan as an inexperienced opponent and to Ridicule him in public. Ryan did not come across as affected by the Left’s strategy, however. He kept his temper; he even had an opportunity to shove Biden’s foot-in-mouth disease back down Biden’s throat. Sure, Biden’s retort that he said what he means was lost on most people but his intent was to throw it back at Ryan by implying that Ryan was saying things that he does not really mean. What? Does Ryan need to take lessons on honesty from the Lying Left?

Knowing what Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals teaches gives sufficient insight into what Biden was up to in the debate to show primarily that he was not a fool, not a boor, not a buffoon as some people want to imply. He was operating exactly as expected for a student of Alinsky in Rules for Radicals.

Once one sees how Alinsky has influenced Obama and those who surround him and see the rules that they follow, then one begins to see through their antics in trying to Isolate and Ridicule their opponents. They are, in the process, setting the agenda/s in a way that implies that only they know what is important and that they will only discuss what is important to them. What they want and where they want to go are most important to the Left and no one else need ever be consulted. This is also an explanation of the closed door “sessions” headed by the Democrats that gave us Obamacare. And, did they care how this looked? Did they ever try to explain why they made/make decisions without consulting the Right? Doesn’t this arrogance remind you of Joe Biden’s arrogance in the debate?

Saul Alinsky has saturated the Left and our government today. For them, it works and is what they chose to follow as a philosophy and political belief system. It is America’s version of Marxism. It is a formula that the Left is plugged into and their faith in their philosophy is fully justified by Alinsky — at least in their own minds. And even if they lose an election, they are not finished. They will come back later with a passion and encourage each other with the concept that “it did not work before but it will next time.” This is part of the Left’s long-standing tradition. They are like weeds: They just keep coming back.

Bob Lunsford -- Bio and Archives | Comments

Mr. Lunsford is a retired DoD telecommunications engineer, linguist and world traveler now living in eastern Kentucky. Still active in radio communications, he has several books copyrighted, one of which is now in final process of publication. He is politically motivated and, as much as possible, politically active.

Commenting Policy

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban.
-- Follow these instructions on registering: