Super Bowl Tim Tebow Ad

Okay, I just watched the Super Bowl (Saints 31 - Colts 17), and where was the Tim Tebow ad that drew so much controversy ahead of time? I watched the whole game, save for a few minutes when I was checking on the pizza and wings in the oven.

I have now learned that the ad did air, and viewed it on YouTube, but look how easy it was to miss the thing. And what a blunder for anti-life groups to protest it before it even aired. All they did was multiply and magnify what was, in the end, an incredibly mild commercial that was totally lost in all the clutter of the other dozens of ads.

As for the content of the ad itself, I felt it was way too timid and did not even address the real issue. It just seemed like Tim Tebow was a sickly child or something. But, because of the NOW types, the publicity has given this ad a context which it never would have had before. Was it effective? Maybe. How many hearts and minds can you really impact in 30 seconds. Would I have authorized the expenditure? No, not unless the ad was a lot more open about the Life issue.

The most offensive ad of the day, of course, was the 20 minute informercial that CBS gave Barack Obama at 4:30!

Washington Post Gets It Right

It was nice to read in Tuesday's Washington Post (2/2/10) some common sense from liberals for a change. Lots of my conservative friends despise the Post for its liberal leanings and they are correct in their appraisal. The Post used a meaningless "macaca" comment by Sen. George Allen to skewer him day after day in the 2006 campaign. But, they do provide a good overall picture of the news of the day. With the downsizing of the Washington Times, it is sadly now the only real choice for us here in the D.C. suburbs. And every now and then they seem to get it right. They just don't wage campaigns against Democrats like they do against Republicans when they find the opportunity.

The Post editorialized in favored of the Iraq war, for example. In 2008, few were surprised when they endorsed inexperienced Democrat Barack Obama for president against John McCain. To me it made little logical sense because Obama's main campaign theme against Hillary Clinton was his opposition to the Iraq War. The Post supported the war. But, despite that, in the end they will side with the Democrat.

The 9/11 attack caused a number of Democrats to rethink their positions on the dangers of terrorism and how we should respond to it. Jewish American Democrats seemed to be particularly attuned to the dangers of terrorism. Leading Democrats like late actor Ron Silver and Senator Joe Lieberman actually supported the Republican Presidential candidate in 2004 and 2008 respectively. Tuesday, it was liberal Richard Cohen who opined "There is almost nothing the Obama administration does regarding terrorism that makes me feel safer." He continues, "more is at stake here than America's image abroad -- namely the security and peace of mind of Americans in America. "

Also, the Sally Jenkins column in Tuesday's Washington Post:"Tebow's 30-second ad hasn't even run yet, but it already has provoked "The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us" to reveal something important about themselves: They aren't actually "pro-choice" so much as they are pro-abortion." And Jenkins herself is Pro-Choice.

I have no hope that Cohen or Jenkins will endorse many conservative ideas but it is clear to me that both the Pro-Life view and an aggressive war on terror are mainstream positions, and the approaches favored by liberals are as far left as a lot of us have been saying for years.

The Tebow Super Bowl Ad Controversy

This over the top quote from the leader of a protesting group blew my mind: "An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year -- an event designed to bring Americans together."

Please -- It's a football game. Let's not make it into a religious event "designed to bring Americans together."

When I first heard the news about a woman's group protesting a Super Bowl ad, I assumed it was something like the GoDaddy ad which always pushes the boundaries of good taste. But no, they weren't protesting the sexism of women being treated as sex objects forced into taking multiple showers with various people. They were angry about a real woman talking about her choice of life in 1987 when she was faced with a difficult pregnancy. The result of that pregnancy was Tim Tebow, the Heisman Trophy winning quarterback at the University of Florida.

Nothing makes these people so angry as to hear stories of abortions that did not take place. Sarah Palin's family in 2008 had two opportunities to choose abortion and both times the family chose life. The vitriol toward Palin has less to do with her policies or experience than it has to do with her Pro-Life actions. Keeping a Down Syndrome baby? A pregnant teenager? And Mrs. Tebow continuing with a risky pregnancy?

And these are the "easy choices." Most abortions are performed for the sake of convenience and rarely for the health of the mother or because of potential fetal abnormalities.

It kills these groups when the reality of abortion is revealed . They want there to be no guilt involved in this decision. Just have the "procedure" and move on to the next task in your life. No big deal. Why else would they be so fearful of one 30 second ad?