Democrat Staffer Right on Bob Schaffer's Tail to Stalk Him at Greeley Parade

Brought to you by the people who recently gave us some of the most laughable, absurd propaganda of the political season: It seems a Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) staffer had to hang really close to Bob Schaffer to stalk him with a camera at the Greeley 4th of July Parade.

I mean, that's really close. Maybe someone should buy the DSCC a zoom lens?

Then again, perhaps Mark Udall had asked for close-up footage of his opponent to study in preparation for the first campaign debate. If so, it didn't work too well. No wonder the DSCC felt impelled to try to spin the debate out of all reality into a Udall victory.

DSCC Tries the Ridiculous "Big Lie" to Spin Mark Udall out of His Debate Disaster

Here's a new dispatch from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC). Try to read it out loud without laughing - I still can't do it:

In the first debate between Democratic Senate candidate Mark Udall and far-right Republican Bob Schaffer, Udall came away the clear winner. Udall presented a clear plan for moving the country forward after years of Republican mismanagement of the economy, national security, and our energy policy.

Sorry, I should have warned you not to read that with food or drink in your mouth. Hope it didn't cause any unfortunate damage to your computer.

Anyone who actually watched last Monday's debate recognizes this as some of the most outrageous and absurd propaganda of the season. "Udall came away the clear winner"? Yes, if by winning the debate you mean "not tripping and falling on your face in front of hundreds of people." And Mark Udall "presented a clear plan"? What clear plan was that ... "working together"?

Hey, these guys at the DSCC ... it's their job to put a little spin on the campaigns. But sometimes they have to make themselves look like royal fools to do it - this is one of those instances for the DSCC. Hope they're getting paid well to publish this unbelievable drivel.

Does Mark Udall Really Not Remember When the 9/11 Attacks Occurred?

Update: Thanks to the commenter's prompt catch, I have posted a correction here.

Over at The Colorado Index, a watcher calls Boulder liberal Mark Udall on a glaring misstatement - a statement in which he claimed to move away from his wacky co-sponsorship of the Department of Peace because he "changed after 9/11".

A watcher astutely and accurately notes:

Mark Udall's co-sponsorship of the Department of Peace bill didn't take place until after 9/11. He only dropped out as a sponsor after he decided to run for the US Senate.

The quote implies that he became more realistic after 9/11. The opposite is true. Mark Udall lies again. The amazing thing is that Ed Sealover didn't catch the lie, or at least didn't note it.

Mark Udall isn't moving to the middle. His campaign is using the classic propaganda tool. Tell a big lie often enough and people will begin to believe it.

Either Mark Udall's memory and other mental faculties are too Swiss-cheesed for him to competently serve as U.S. Senator, or he indeed has been caught in an outright lie.

Does Mark Udall really not remember when our nation was invaded by terrorists? Will we get a retraction and explanation from the Udall campaign?

The History of Propaganda: Still Being Written

The Brown Pelican Society provides a thumbnail guide to the history of propaganda and examines its modern usage by the left in America. Mark Udall gets a one liner because of his participation in the Big Lie targeting Rush Limbaugh.

We found the following two paragraphs most interesting:

There is an old maxim that if one repeats a lie often and loud enough, it will eventually be perceived as the truth.

Adolf Hitler defined that dictum in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf, writing that a big lie must be so “colossal” that the public would be confident that no national leaders “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”

There has been a post WWII taboo, enforced by the Anti-Defamation League, against comparing modern activities with those of Nazi's. They fear that doing so will eventually devalue what the Nazis did.

Brown Pelican is careful to stick to history and allow the reader to draw his own conclusions about the activities of organizations like media matters.

Even so, the left has become so brazen about telling outright lies in an effort to silence conservative speech that they will eventually risk seeing themselves and their financial angels directly compared to Joseph Goebbels. We are being careful to say that we are not there yet, but each day the left seems willing to push the envelope farther in that direction. Eventually, the taboo dam will break as it should if the society is to remain free of demagoguery.

A demagogue is defined by the American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition as: "A politician who seeks to win and hold office by appeals to mass prejudice. Demagogues often use lies and distortion. (See Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.)"

On this one issue, where he was inciting prejudice against Rush Limbaugh using a lie and distortion in the hope that it would help him win an office, Mark Udall's actions clearly identify him as a willing demagogue.

Anyone Notice A Difference?

Read the post immediately below this one. It is a carefully laid out comparison of the Bob Schaffer position on Education vs. the Mark Udall position. It is long and thoughtful, as are all of his pieces on his Best Destiny site.

Since he is not blowing his own horn, I'll blow it for him. If you want to understand the intricacies of CSAP, you should slide on over for an unbiased (everyone has biases, some hide them better than others) look:

CSAP Impressions Part I
CSAP Impressions Part II
CSAP Impressions Part IIB
CSAP Impressions Part III
CSAP Impressions, Part Last
CSAP Impressions, Post Script

These essays were written by a guy who draws no money from any source for his essays, either here or on his other blog. Compare the quality of his work with anything the Democrat hate machines like Colorado Media Matters, Colorado Pols, Square State, and ProgressNow put out. Most, if not all get paid by sources they won't name (thought ultimately to be Tim Gill and George Soros).

They have a candidate who is so liberal that he has never been called a moderate by any source we know of. People who are as far left as Mark Udall win in Boulder, but not in all of Colorado. Given that positioning, what are these paid media mercenaries left with? They try to trash Schaffer and sites like this one any way they can.

Over the next year to the election, you can expect quality from those who do their writing out of conviction, and name calling trash from the far left Democrat sites who get paid for propaganda. Watch and see.