There's a new Super Bowl surprise from Focus on the Family: a 2nd ad.
The evangelical group that bought ad time in the CBS game telecast will announce today that it has bought time in the pregame show to air a 2nd ad 4 times....
The new ad also features star quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam. It was filmed in Orlando last month at the same time as the group's controversial - though yet unseen - in-game ad.
News of the 2nd ad comes just days after, anticipating the Tebow ad, Planned Parenthood posted an online ad featuring Olympian Al Joyner and former NFL player Sean James defending abortion rights. Interest groups including the National Organization for Women have asked CBS to drop the Tebow ad.
Although Focus on the Family won't reveal its ads' details, CEO Jim Daly says the original ad was rejected by CBS. In it, Pam Tebow, who was advised by a doctor to have an abortion for medical reasons when pregnant with her son, said, "Both of our lives were at risk."
"They felt that was too much," he says. "So we dropped the line. We didn't fight them." The word "abortion" is never used.
The ad is "an open discussion on the sanctity of human life - not just the issue of abortion," Daly says. It was made for less than $100k with "a bit of humor in it - in fitting with the Super Bowl theme."
The ad has gotten more pregame buzz than any other game ad. "It's become a flashpoint because everybody keeps telling us it's a flashpoint," says Robert Thompson, pop culture professor at Syracuse University. "Many people who didn't know who Tim Tebow was now know the whole narrative. They could pull the ad (now) and save $2.8 million (the estimated cost of the ad time in the game)."
But the group estimates that by the game's end, the ad also will have gotten $10 million worth of free exposure.
"I've seen this called brilliant marketing strategy," laughs Daly. "Well, I can assure you this was not something where we sat down to demonstrate brilliance."
The idea came from the group's film unit. Daly decided it was a Super Bowl ad. "I thought it was the perfect moment."
He coaxed CBS to ease the game's unwritten ban on advocacy ads. CBS says it's adjusting to a changing society. "We have for some time moderated our approach to advocacy submissions after it became apparent that our stance did not reflect public sentiment or industry norms," spokeswoman Shannon Jacobs says.
Daly says don't look for Focus on the Family again next year. "It would lose its punch."
What I wouldn't give to be at PP when the ad airs and watch all those little prochoice heads popping like a skillet of popcorn!
Their rhetoric has finally caught up with them and now (not to be confused with NOW) people are actually talking about the legitimacy, beauty, and realized potential of the other half of 'CHOICE': the decision to embrace the child of the womb.
Worse still is that Mrs. Tebow was willing to lose her life as a consequence.
For the wicked crew at PP, that's the unkindest cut of all.Posted by: Gerard Nadal at February 6, 2010 12:04 PM
I'm going to have to draw the line at this. One advertisement, fine, but four is just spending money that could have gone to helping pregnant women around the world (Haiti, for example). I might be the odd person out, but four is excessive.Posted by: Vannah at February 6, 2010 12:48 PM
LOL...I don't know. When the sinful woman "wasted" her expensive perfume on wiping the Lord's feet and the Lord was reproached for not selling it and giving the money to the poor, he said, "The poor you will always have with you." This seems to be a moment to capitalize on advancing the cause of the culture of life. I say the ads are a good use of resources.Posted by: Grace at February 6, 2010 12:56 PM
If you keep hittin' like that, I can cease being a contributor and become a passive spectator.
yor bro kenPosted by: kbhvac at February 6, 2010 12:58 PM
Posted by: Vannah at February 6, 2010 12:48 PM
It says this add will air during the pre-game. I think the price is lower during pre-game than game time.
Besides that though, why do you think this ad/money wont be helping pregnant women? Maybe (and my guess is that, yes) these ads will change minds and ultimately save women the heartache of abortion.Posted by: Kristen at February 6, 2010 1:00 PM
LOL, I don't know... When the Lord was reproached for allowing the sinful woman to "waste" expensive perfume on wiping his feet, he reminded us "the poor you will always have with you." This is definitely a moment to capitalize on an opportunity to advance the culture of life. This moment we will not always have with us, but the poor and unloved we will. I think FF is using its resources well.Posted by: Grace at February 6, 2010 1:01 PM
So I'm actually pretty sure that the ad was NOT payed for from donations to Focus on the Family, but from private funders who specifically wanted to spend their money on an advertisement like this. I don't know if that makes things better for you, Vannah, but just FYI.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at February 6, 2010 1:06 PM
Good News for pre-natal children as reported from the perspective of the 'dead babies r us' crowd.
In the Dominican Republic, lawmakers ratified Article 30, effectively making abortion illegal in all cases, despite the ongoing mobilization and demonstrations by men and women throughout the country.
And in Mexico, a year after the Supreme Court
upheld a Mexico City law allowing abortion in the first trimester, the majority of states have amended their constitutions to criminalize abortion, a trend that one advocate aptly calls “outrageous, disappointing and very frustrating.”
yor bro kenPosted by: kbhvac at February 6, 2010 1:08 PM
Constitution of Dominican Republic outlaws abortion
Friday, February 05, 2010By Spero News
"The new Constitution that outlaws abortion came into force on January 26, the day of Juan Pablo Duarte (the main "Father of the Nation" of the Dominican Republic) and was approved by the Dominican National Congress. Defense of life has been one of the most controversial issues during the Assembly, which finally approved Article 37 of the Constitution, which states that "the right to life is inviolable from conception to death.
The death penalty cannot be established, declared, or applied in any case whatsoever."
That's red neck for halleleujah.
yor bro kenPosted by: kbhvac at February 6, 2010 1:15 PM
I agree with you Vannah - that is a heck of a lot of money to spend when there are so many needs out there. I suppose though I've always seen them more as a political group than a Christian group - and with that being said, the exposure opportunity is out there.Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at February 6, 2010 1:18 PM
My pre-game show. Glad ya liked it ;-)
As for those who agree that the ad is a lot of money hat could have helped the poor, I understand your genuine concern.
May I invite you to consider that those whose existence is most wretched are those humans in utero crossing the threshold of an abortion clinic. If even one child lives because these ads give its mother pause, it was money well spent.
I suspect that many will have cause to bless Focus on the Family, the Tebows, and the courageous executives at CBS for this grace-filled weekend.Posted by: Gerard Nadal at February 6, 2010 1:38 PM
Just more convincing evidence that you are a 'liberal'.
You are not content to let people invest, spend, contribute, fund who and what they choose.
You, because of your enlightened intellect, know more than these mere mortals how to better spend THEIR money.
If your conscience compels you to support Haitians in their hour of need then go for it.
Send as much of YOUR money as you are able and get as many of your family, friends, co-workers and strangers to send as much of THEIR money as they are able.
Do not salve your conscience by attempting to 'guilt' other folks into bearing your burden.
Do not use the Haitians as a convenient 'prop' in an attempt to manipulate people.
Just go to Whitehouse.gov and you will find all the contact information you need to direct YOUR resources to the Haitian people.
yor bro kenPosted by: kbhvac at February 6, 2010 1:48 PM
My bro Ken -
I've donated to Haiti - and again, I have no issue as they are more of a political organization than a Christian organization.
I'm interested to see how this all plays out - if it is deemed a "success" (contributions or poll numbers), I think next year we'll see quite a few political type ads in the super bowl.Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at February 6, 2010 1:51 PM
We have a voice now, that is actually being heard, I think this is great. For too long, the pro life movement was silenced, in the name of respect for the women who aborted and their feelings. The truth is, these are many of the same women they were silencing, since they muzzled them from telling the truth. I know it cost a lot of money, but our voices need to be heard, with dignity and respect. I believe they will do this with these ads. Just my humble opinion.Posted by: Diane~ IDSCforlife at February 6, 2010 1:54 PM
Ex-GOP, RINO, you are not alone in wanting to find an alternative to the GOP. In fact people like you are the reason for the new tea party revolution that is taking place. People saw liberals like you electing fiscally irresponsible big government "Republicans" to office and making the Republican's look like "Liberal light". Maybe you should leave the Democratic party again and try infiltrating the tea-party movement. lolPosted by: truthseeker at February 6, 2010 2:06 PM
truth - I'm not a member of either party - I'll probably split my ticket again this next year, but will be interesting to see who ends up running in my state (for Senate).
The tea party movement is interesting to follow - will be fun to see what group emerges - it reminds me a bit of the multiple Independent parties of a few years ago.
I'm hoping some third party rises up - we need some other group to further the debate and make the parties promote themselves rather than simply get votes by bashing the other party.Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at February 6, 2010 2:11 PM
Do you not realize that by "bashing the other party", one takes a stand as being FOR what the other party opposes? Critical thinking is not your forte, is it?
I suppose since the tea party movement is new and exciting, eventually you'll take your AADD that way, then go ahead and vote for liberals when they promise you something you want, and start calling yourself "ex-tea partier".Posted by: xalisae at February 6, 2010 2:56 PM
If donors wanted to do this particular thing, who are we to say no? We have no idea what else those donors might be doing with other money. To criticize them for spending so much on ads when they "might be helping pregnant women" is to fall into the same fallacy that abortion advocates fall into, when they sneer at prolifers and ask why we don't do diddly-squat for born children. They don't know about how many of us volunteer at soup kitchens, or donate regularly to Mercy Ships, or care for foster children, or adopt at-risk kids, etc.Posted by: Christina at February 6, 2010 2:57 PM
The group has emerged. Their platform is "smaller" government; which fits nicely into the Republican party platform. These independent minded people are united in their platform of demanding fiscally responsible government. As far as drawing energy from bashing others; the tea-partiers do seem to enjoy using Obama's wreckless spending and government expansion as the antithesis of what they stand for.Posted by: truthseeker at February 6, 2010 3:06 PM
xalisae - does that mean the GOP is against health care since they voted against the bill? Close all the hospitals?
I don't think the GOP has taken a stance on anything for a couple of years - even McCains party platform was mostly against the Democrats - and the things he said he was for he has since said he's against...it is all very confusing actually.
I'm nowhere near a tea-party person - just find that movement interested.
xalisae - it is always wonderful talking to you - you are like a ray of sunshine on cloudy days, and like a glimmer of hope when life is in despair. I do hope that all is good for you wherever you are, and that you find folks in your life to be as pleasant with as you are with me.
truthseeker - one correction - it fits nicely into what the GOP SAYS they believe in - but has been years since removed. Don't forget that the GOP passed the largest entitlement program in recent history - went to war twice without pay for it, and put in tax cuts, again, without paying for it. You can talk high level about current spending and blame Obama, but any educated look finds that the majority of that spending would have been there with anyone in office- again, because of the last 25 years of mis-management. So to say that the tea parties goal is close to the GOP is flat out wrong.
I just don't know what the GOP stands for anymore - heck, you have a GOP senator holding up judges so that he can get more money into his state - is that fiscal responsibility? Is that the type of party that the small government tea party folks are going to flock to?Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at February 6, 2010 3:30 PM
I agree with you Vannah - that is a heck of a lot of money to spend when there are so many needs out there.
I have to disagree. I understand the concern, but--as Jesus pointed out--"the poor you will always have with you". Not only is no one suggesting that "we give exclusively to pro-life advertisements, and tell the poor to 'stuff it'", but complaints about the financial costs of pro-life evangelization (and this Superbowl opportunity is a golden one, if ever there was one) are really rather short-sighted. Getting mothers and so-called "medical professionals" from killing unborn children is a goal that far outstrips the importance of feeding the poor--important though that might be.
Think about this, for a moment: why, if feeding the poor is so absolutely paramount (and I mean no denigration of the noble practice of almsgiving), did Jesus "waste all that time" talking about the Kingdom, urging repentance from sin, dying on the cross, and the like? Why not multiply the loaves and fishes a billion-fold, and let them keep dividing throughout all of time, so that no one ever goes hungry again?
No... there are priorities more grave than even the good and necessary almsgiving to the poor.
I suppose though I've always seen [Focus on the Family] more as a political group than a Christian group
Only someone who has virtually no idea of their mission (and/or someone who's utterly incapable of viewing the world through anything other than politically-coloured lenses) could possibly say such a thing.Posted by: Paladin at February 6, 2010 3:53 PM
Money well spent and I am so excited to see the ads!
The generous donors gave specifically for this ad campaign. Got my email from FOTF this morning. :)
"xalisae - does that mean the GOP is against health care since they voted against the bill? Close all the hospitals?"
Do you think the dems have a magic wand they can wave which will make fully-paid healthcare for every many, woman, and child JUST APPEAR? Are you paying attention to what the ACTUAL debate is about? Do you really, honestly think that the GOP just hates people so much they want them to die without medical treatment? Are you really that stupid? People aren't dying without health insurance. As MANY, MANY, MANY of the other posters here have said who work in the medical industry have stated time and time again, EVEN POOR PEOPLE HAVE ACCESS TO CARE. It's not the actual care we're opposing, it's making laws which state that people HAVE to buy something or taking money from people to give insurance to people who don't have it now (many of whom either don't need it or are here ilegally).
Want to know a good way to get insurance to people who don't have it? Don't make things harder for businesses to hire people so there are more jobs so there are more people getting money through their employers. That not only solves the "no insurance" problem, but also the HORRIFIC unemployment problem that exists right now. Or are you ok with that, just as long as YOU have the teat of bureaucracy to suckle YOUR "free" healthcare out of because YOU need it? I don't have health insurance right now, either, but I'm not about to condemn the future of my country and my children to get it. Immature and selfish.
Yes, RINO, you happened to be in the party at a time when a bunch of other people were/are in the party who ALSO weren't actually adhering to the party platform. The Tea Party Movement is like a reformation. As others have said, the party became "liberal-lite"...AND WE HATE THAT. I'd rather be a tea partier and get my party back than abandon it entirely, because it USED to mean something good, but if the tea party movement can't do that, and it becomes a party unto itself, I'll go there. The fact that you wouldn't include yourself in the tea partiers speaks to your "RINO-ness". You complain about how republicans weren't really being fiscally conservative, then talk about how Big Daddy Bammy better give you your healthcare. Duh.
And, thanks for the well-wishes. Most people in my life treat me respectfully and cordially, because that is how I treat them. You'll find me to only be short with those who give me reason. Blatant stupidity is high on my list of reasons.Posted by: xalisae at February 6, 2010 4:00 PM
I've got a challenge for you.
Rest of the month, take a tally on Citizen link and Drive Thru blog - tally the number of times you see the word Jesus, the word Bible, the word gay, the word homosexual, and the word liberal.
FotFamily's political arm takes the issues that are both Biblical and Republican and run with those.
They DO have a massive area of the company that is family guidance stuff - but I believe this ad is coming from the citizen link side of things.Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at February 6, 2010 4:03 PM
What FOF is spending on ads may seem like a lot. But I agree with Grace. This is a moment we've prayed for for a long time. Please remember that the Pro Life movement has been shut out of the mainstream media for several decades, frustrated at not being heard. Each year hundreds of thousands of people on the Washington Mall are deliberately ignored by the media. We pro lifers are well aware of the media's efforts to marginalize us. We should have been allowed to buy airtime like this for many years now, but weren't. We could only pray that there would come a day when we could present our case to the nation. Just last year, a Pro Life superbowl ad was rejected. Now that we finally have reached a moment when we've got America's attention and public support and interest are building, it seems entirely fitting to pour it on, make up for lost time as it were. The chance may not come again. This is indeed a rare teachable moment which warrants extra spending.
Also, when we ask ourselves, as we always should, could this money not be spent on something better or more worthy, like helping the people of Haiti, I, like any true Pro Lifer, must ask, what is better or more worthy than restoring protection for unborn babies in this and every society.Posted by: Joanne at February 6, 2010 4:04 PM
You said that if they are against something, they are taking a stand on the opposite side - I was just (trying) to follow your logic. I don't know what the GOP's stance is on healthcare. They held office 20 of 28 years, and passed the biggest entitlement program in my lifetime. They offered up an extremely weak bill of their own that was laughable if not insulting. So if you want to boil down to silly little saying like "when they are against something they are taking a stand they are for something else" - the best I can tell is they are FOR their own pocketbooks and big insurance, and against middle America.
I want reform because I know far too many people suffering under medical bills. Just recently, the state I just moved from (Minnesota) said that 100,000 more people are uninsured. 100,000.
Furthermore, the current pace of health care can't sustain itself, either for the country or for individuals. It will further bankrupt the country and those living in it.
But yes, the GOP votes against it, so according to you in your wisdom, they are FOR something else? What is that x? Seriously - I'd love to know?Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at February 6, 2010 4:10 PM
How's it going? :)Posted by: Vannah at February 6, 2010 4:12 PM
I agree with you Vannah - that is a heck of a lot of money to spend when there are so many needs out there.
I had a friend say the same thing to me, and I said, "Every other advertiser is doing the same thing, so we could say the same about them, couldn't we?"
Are we going to criticize the other businesses who are paying millions for THEIR ads to be played as well?Posted by: Kel at February 6, 2010 4:37 PM
Going great, Vannah! Happy Saturday to you!
Yes. Do you think there will be a big flap about all the beer ads that will undoubtedly be shown and just how much does the halftime show and wardrobe malfunctions cost?? It could be argued that that is money better spent elsewhere.
And let's not forget, Carla, the Tebow ad is "sexist" according to Jehmu Greene (I think) who was interviewed by Bill O'Reilly.
But I don't see those groups complaining about the half-dressed cheerleaders or ads which portray women as sex objects. These women's groups really don't have a clue, do they??Posted by: Kel at February 6, 2010 4:48 PM
They don't have a clue but we do. People can see right through their crap rhetoric.Posted by: carla at February 6, 2010 5:25 PM
Does a television ad really change they way that you view the start of life? Or how you conceptualize family?
Ads for products (impulse decisions) make sense. Ads for continuing unwanted pregnancy don't seem to correspond with impulse decisions....
I don't understand how the ad is effective, beyond the hoopla and drama surrounding it.Posted by: elle at February 6, 2010 5:59 PM
all I can say, is rock on, Focus on the Family!Posted by: angel at February 6, 2010 6:48 PM
Colts Coach Clyde Christensen Spared From Abortion Like Tim Tebow
(i would post the link, but I don't want it caught up in moderating)Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 6, 2010 7:27 PM
Tim Tebow's mom's story is my wife's story.
When she was 4 months pregnant with our now 13 year old son Daniel, because of an ovarian tumor and what appeared to be the lack of kidneys for Daniel, the doctor recommended a hysterectomy. This, of course, was polite for abortion.
My wife refused and rejected the doctor's advice and courageously submitted herself to the surgery to remove the tumor while she was pregnant. Daniel was then born full term and today she and Daniel are both healthy. In my eye's my wife is my hero and Daniel is a gift from God.
In fact, Daniel aspires to be a college quarterback some day and as his dad I am going to do everything I can to help him realize that dream. He's also a gifted math and science student as well as a talented piano player.
Moms, if you have received a bad report from a doctor about your unborn baby, know this:
"For I know the plans that I have for you,' declares the LORD, 'plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope.
Then you will call upon Me and come and pray to Me, and I will listen to you."
The Tebow ad isn't selling a product, it's selling an idea (that all human life has dignity ) with emotion - longer-lasting than an impulse purchase of beer or chips.
* * * *
How wonderful that the Dominican Republic has made abortion illegal - at the same time that their neighbor Haiti has lost so many children in the recent earthquake. And here we are in the U.S. debating whether dollars are better spent helping the surviving citizens of Haiti or funding a commercial which could turn the tide of abortion in this country. I think there are plenty of dollars to do both. We are truly blessed as a nation to have such generous people. If we could all be as generous to the unborn, what a world it would be.
When I 'bash' liberals and by extension liberalism, liberals perceive that as support of republicans and the republican party.
I am an authentic ex-republican unlike our RINO friend. I was once a member of the republican party, once contributed to both the republican party and to republican candidates, served as a precinct committeeman, served on the executive committee of the county republican party, was a delegate to the state convention and could have gone as a delegate to the national convention and finally was a republican candidate.
I did all that because as a conservative and a pro-lifer the republican party platform and republican candidates best reflected my values.
I left the republican party because of the 'establishment' who welcomed our money and our sweat, but were deaf to our voices and put more value on electing a candidate with an R following their name than recruiting and supporting candidates who best reflected the platform.
When I left the republican party, I did not cease to be a 'conservative'.
I have yet to have found a liberal candidate for office who was the better or best available choice in any race that I was authorized to vote.
I vote for candidates because they best reflect my values, not because of their party affiliation.
I recognize that in some parts of the country, a pro-life liberal maybe the best option some voters have because the only alternatives are members of the 'dead babies r us' party, a party which transends political affiliations.
RINO, your milk toast offerings are result of a diet which consists of nothing but milk, and not even whole milk, but watered down 1% homo milk.
White bread and water is the diet of slaves and criminals and is designed to keep them weak and dependent.
That is the empty promise of liberals and liberalism.
yor bro kenPosted by: kbhvac at February 7, 2010 7:57 AM
I have already pointed out to you at least 100 times the reforms that have been suggested by the GOP, they were even mentioned at Obama's visit to the Republican retreat where Obama was given the written suggestions that he claimed he had already reviewed.
Uninsured does not equal no medical care. People are also uninsured because they do not take the responsibility to insure themselves or it is not a priority. Sorry, but there are people who simply do not take it upon themselves to responsibly manage their lives, money and health.
People are also suffering under the burden of unemployment, bankruptcy and forclosure. Any gov't programs in the works to take care of this? People can be crushed by legal expenses. Any gov't programs to manage this situation?
The health care "crisis" could be best managed with competition and free market forces among insurance companies and health care providers,
not another cumbersome, inefficient, and hugely expensive gov't program.
BTW, did you hear that some provincial governor(?)in Canada came to the United States for surgery? Now why on earth didn't he take advantage of his own country's wonderful gov't run health care system? Do you know of any American governors going to Canada for medical care?
I wonder if the governor(?) wound up at one of the border American hospitals contracted by Canada to care for Canadian citizens.
You, like me, would probably be viewed as an Independent, which is what I consider myself. I support the candidate and refuse to support or join any political party. That has always been the way I voted and do now.
I became bitterly disillusioned with the Republicans and they will have to do much to convince me otherwise. I remember when the Democrats actually stood for something.
So until then, I will remain what I have always been, an Independent. I vote conscience, not party loyalty.Posted by: Mary at February 7, 2010 9:49 AM
Mary - Happy Super Bowl Sunday to you. Home for a while and heading to our pastor's house to cheer on the Saints. Hope all is well in whatever you are doing.
A few quick counters:
- Yes, the GOP has a bill in the house cycle. The reviews I read ranged from laughable to insincere. I can post some reviews of it if you'd like.
- The "hugely expensive" government program would trim a lot of money off of the overall government spending, and the net is that the deficit decreases - which in general is a good thing and should be supported.
- Canada? Why is that even coming up? Furthermore, there's Americans who travel to other countries because of certain specialists or costs of procedures - so are all of the sudden, those systems better because somebody went there? I think that's a good story if the bills were anything like a Canadian system.
- You say that uninsured people don't make it a priority. First off, I think that's hogwash, but let me throw out a different example in regards to why we need reform - and since you like stories, I'll pull out a story. You can find more on this around the web - big in the news lately -
Jennifer Latham - mother of four, Preschool teacher. Car wreck in 2005 left her with many injuries. Two months in the hospital racked up almost $200K in bills - thankfully she had health insurance.
Well, maybe not. When she applied for insurance, she hadn't noted she had an emergency room visit for shortness of breath, so they canceled her policy and left her on the hook for $200K.
She sued Assurant health for $7 million and the jury gave her $37 million. I hope it puts that company out of business quite frankly.
Would more stories be good? Jacqueline Ruess maybe? Or how about Angela Clay?
Quite frankly, the health insurance system in the US is one of the most anti-family situations that must be combated (abortion is certainly another - don't get me wrong).
You and I could go round and round for hours - I'm just saying it goes way beyond people who simply don't want to pay for insurance.Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at February 7, 2010 1:43 PM
I hope and pray that this commercial with Timmy Tebow will bring more girls into our Crisis Pregnancy Center, where we can tell them the truth in love, tell them about Christ's love for them. And that it is a baby, not a blood mass.
People pray for these Crisis Pregnancy Centers, that are doing it the right way!!!
Thank you, happy super bowl to you as well.
The reviews I read of the bill Obama wants call it hugely expensive and calls for more gov't control and bureaucracies. We've learned the gov't can't even handle a cash for clunkers program, much less run a health care bureaucracy.
The gov't trimming expense would be a first and is itself laughable.
The methods I have pointed out to you several times would be very effective in curbing expense and would not cost the taxpayer a time.
I bring up Canada because they have a gov't run system. It started out with the best intentions, much like what is happening here now. Yet wealthy and connected Canadians come to our country and the gov't must contract with American hospitals.
I didn't say uninsured people don't make it a priority. I said there are people who take no responsiblity for their lives, money, and health. There are people who do not make it a priority to have health insurance. Sorry, that's a fact. Like people who don't make it a priority to pay their bills.
The lady had an insurance issue. That's why I so strongly support insurance reform and competition among companies. Dealing with gov't bureaucrats can make the insurance bureaucrats look like a walk in the park. Gee, I know a story of a family that went backrupt paying legal bills to protect themselves from winding up in jail on false charges. The top divorce lawyer in our town charges several thousand up front. Oh, and people losing their homes, who have given up even looking for work. How about some magic gov't programs to remedy these life tragedies?
Anti family? LOL. I'm sure Canadians having to come to American hospitals puts a strain on their families.Posted by: Mary at February 7, 2010 2:21 PM
That's why I so strongly support insurance reform and competition among companies.
Me too, Mary. Despite all the Dem rhetoric about evil insurance companies, their actions betray their hypocrisy. The House bill preserved ERISA preemption. As far as I can tell, the Senate version also left loopholes. If the insurance companies are so evil, why aren't the Dems reforming ERISA to hold employer-based plans more accountable? It's something they can do fairly quickly outside of any major health care reform package and it doesn't burden the deficit.Posted by: Fed Up at February 7, 2010 3:42 PM
. The House bill preserved ERISA preemption. As far as I can tell, the Senate version also left loopholes. If the insurance companies are so evil, why aren't the Dems reforming ERISA to hold employer-based plans more accountable?
Posted by: Fed Up at February 7, 2010 3:42 PM
100% agree with you there Fed Up. ERISA preemption is a terrible thing.Posted by: Hal at February 7, 2010 4:27 PM
Hi Hal. Glad to know we agree on something :) What's your take on the Dems' reluctance to touch it?Posted by: Fed Up at February 7, 2010 4:32 PM
I haven't researched it yet, but did the House GOP say anything about it?Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at February 7, 2010 4:36 PM
EGV, I have to run but if you google John Shadegg and ERISA you should find something.
Here's an article
and a vid to get you started.Posted by: Fed Up at February 7, 2010 4:43 PM
Honestly FedUp and Hal,
All the underhandedness going on including bribery and special concessions to unions to name a few. Typical of what happens when the gov't sticks its nose into anything. Anyone old enough remember the "War on Poverty" which cost trillions and never eliminated poverty?
Your gov't at work.
Just saw the ad.... WONDERFUL!!!Posted by: Elisabeth at February 7, 2010 5:47 PM
Sorry for the delay; I'm trying to shake some sort of bug that I caught, two days ago.
Paladin - I've got a challenge for you. Rest of the month, take a tally on Citizen link and Drive Thru blog - tally the number of times you see the word Jesus, the word Bible, the word gay, the word homosexual, and the word liberal.
:) Um... need I point out that you've back pedalled in your position, sir? Here's what you wrote originally, and against which I complained:
"I suppose though I've always seen [Focus on the Family] more as a political group than a Christian group"
So: since then, you've moved from saying that you see FOTF as "more as a political group than a Christian group" to asking me to look for instances of "Jesus" and "Bible" (did you seriously not expect to see these on a Christian site?), in addition to "gay" and "homosexual" (did you seriously think FOTF is concerned about those thongs for POLITICAL reasons?), and finally "liberal"--the only political word of the five.
Do you still not understand that Christians--most especially including Dr. Dobson and the rest of FOTF--hate abortion, euthanasia, etc., because they're EVIL and antithetical to all sane morality, and NOT because they're "political"? The fact that the political sphere ALSO talks about them is completely irrelevant. If you get that difference straight in your head, things could go rather more smoothly.
FotFamily's political arm takes the issues that are both Biblical and Republican and run with those.
(*sigh*) I'll have to say it again: you are a political creature, aren't you? You seem utterly incapable of seeing anything except through some sort of political lenses. And again, I'll say: the fact that Christian (i.e. those who are concerned with "Biblical" things) groups and Republican groups overlap on many issues is happenstance, and not much more. The way you're presenting this, one (who heard you and who didn't know better) might think that FOTF supports Christianity because it's somehow "Republican"--which is nonsense in the extreme. Case in point: ask Dr. Dobson about his "support" for the pro-death Arlen Specter or Arnold Schwarzenegger; the extent to which any politician--GOP, Democrat, or otherwise--abandons the cause of life and morality is the extent to which FOTF drops them like a hot potato, and showers condemnation on their horrid actions... which is perfectly fitting.
They DO have a massive area of the company that is family guidance stuff - but I believe this ad is coming from the citizen link side of things.
Your belief is mistaken, I'm afraid.Posted by: Paladin at February 7, 2010 7:02 PM
Before you do any more handstands over this woman "sticking" it to the insurance company, ask yourself who in turn the insurance company "sticks" it to in the form of higher premiums and fewer benefits. Bingo.
Be very careful what you wish for... when the gods want to punish (wo)man, they answer their prayers.Posted by: Mary at February 7, 2010 8:27 PM
Paladin - I'm at a loss in how to debate with you - you ask political questions, but then when I gave my political views, you say I only see things in a political nature. Let me clarify a couple of things - and if I'm being too political while talking politics, let's just drop it:
- If you go to Citizen Link or the Drive thru blog, you'd barely know it is from a Christian organization. Now, the thing that irks me is the same issues pop up from time to time, but the slant is always pro-Republican. Citizen Link is currently hammering the cost of health care reform (though the CBO, which they have cited before, cites the bill would save money) - yet when asked about the Medicare expansion bill and the costs of that, the response was that it wasn't on their radar screen.
The main reason I have an issue with it is that on many boards such as this, over and over it is said that voting Democrat is senseless, evil, and something a Christian would never do. It's not hard to get hyper-sensitive and link so many things to politics when the talk is so overt, and in my view, so short-sighted.
Last thing - from following Focus on their site for a few years, I've seen nothing against Arnold. Nothing against Sanford either or Larry Craig - just quick statements and done with it. And the dropping of people they don't agree with? You are right - they preached against McCain until he was the only option, and then he was the darling again. And supporting Brown - who's more liberal than a few Dems in the Senate. Do you see where a person can make the case that they get some power from promoting the right instead of hitting both sides hard?
Just some thoughts - hope you're getting well again.Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at February 7, 2010 9:02 PM
If ERISA was so preserved and ignored (reforming it), then why were they against the house legislation? Something isn't adding up.Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at February 7, 2010 9:12 PM
Who are you talking about, EGV? Which opponent to the house bill are you referring to?Posted by: Fed Up at February 7, 2010 9:32 PM
Fed Up -
In a multi-trillion dollar part of the economy, I'll admit I'm not familiar with all the various pieces - and ERISA is one of them. In reading though, ERISA was against the House bill that the Dems passed - so if the current bills ignored ERISA, why would their be opposition from that group?Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at February 7, 2010 9:37 PM
A secondary note that I'm really enjoying is the news of the summit to talk about health care, both sides, and then have a public forum regarding health care.
Again, I like most of the provisions of the bills simply because something has to be passed and we must start somewhere. I understand though that the bills are far from perfect - and I think the GOP does have some great ideas (both that were incorporated and that weren't) - and I think this is an opportunity for both sides to get a bill that everyone has input in and will help the American people. The process has been terrible on both sides - and now the Dems can't hide behind closed doors, and the GOP can't play the obstructionist route. Should be fun - but should be better for the American people.Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at February 7, 2010 9:41 PM
I can't agree that any bill at all is better than no bill, passing a bill for the sake of passing it.
How could the Republicans play the obstructionist role? You forget that Obama had a filibuster proof majority in the senate and a majority in congress. He had an adoring media and initially the good will of the American people.
Its Obama and his Democrats who failed. Republicans couldn't have stopped the Democrats if they tried.
EGV, ERISA is a law, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say "ERISA was against" the bill. It's possible that some ERISA plan sponsors opposed the bill. That wouldn't surprise me. Exemption from paying damages doesn't mean exemption from complying with other requirements imposed by the bill. Remember the House bill had a grace period but not an exception for employer-sponsored plans. Big difference.
How could the Republicans play the obstructionist role?
Indeed. It was the Dems who refused to let the Republican plans see the light of day. It was the Dems who moved to limit debate and discussion. It was the dems who defeated amendments that would have made the bill more palatable to more people. Despite all that they still couldn't pass the monstrosity with a majority in both houses.
The "we have to start somewhere" rhetoric gets old. Starting with common sense measures that don't balloon the deficit is something we can all agree on. Starting with a federal takeover of insurance companies and the delivery of health care is not something we can all agree on.Posted by: Fed Up at February 7, 2010 10:55 PM
Paladin - I'm at a loss in how to debate with you - you ask political questions,
I do? Could you show me where? I'm serious, here... because I'm not conscious of having asked any political questions at all. The only one that even mentioned political figures was the "Specter & Schwarzenegger" question, and that was to *disprove* your contention that FOTF was somehow fixated on the GOP for partisan political reasons.
but then when I gave my political views, you say I only see things in a political nature.
If you go to Citizen Link or the Drive thru blog, you'd barely know it is from a Christian organization.
Well... we already covered the fact that FOTF placed the ad (in question), and not FOTF-Action/Citizenlink. I do not deny at all that the latter deal with political issues; but I flatly deny your assertion that even they are somehow beholden to the GOP "for its own sake" (as if its positions on abortion, etc., were secondary to alleged "party loyalty"). FOTF involves itself in politics because that's the arena in which some of the most grave evils (e.g. abortion, euthanasia, etc.) are being inflicted upon us; again: if the GOP were to become more pro-death, pro-homosexual, etc., than the Democrats, you'd see FOTF drop them like a hot potato. Do you doubt this?
Now, the thing that irks me is the same issues pop up from time to time, but the slant is always pro-Republican.
See above. The choice is between the party of death (abortion is explicitly on their party platform) and the oft-weak-kneed party which haltingly tries to be pro-life; it's a sad choice, but still a clear one.
Citizen Link is currently hammering the cost of health care reform (though the CBO, which they have cited before, cites the bill would save money) - yet when asked about the Medicare expansion bill and the costs of that, the response was that it wasn't on their radar screen.
They're welcome to their thoughts, I'm sure... and that goes beyond my expertise. I would repeat, though, that FOTF per se is not interested in party politics, and never has been. The haphazard alliance with the GOP is solely because they're the only major party who's willing to defend life, even erratically.
The main reason I have an issue with it is that on many boards such as this, over and over it is said that voting Democrat is senseless, evil, and something a Christian would never do.
In our country, that's sadly true (with vanishingly few exceptions--such as Rep Bart Stupak, who's resisted tremendous pressure to defend life); to vote Democratic is to vote for a party whose very platform enshrines the murder of unborn children as a "right" that should never be impaired by the government. No sane Christian could be sanguine about that.
It's not hard to get hyper-sensitive and link so many things to politics when the talk is so overt, and in my view, so short-sighted.
Short-sighted? How so?
Last thing - from following Focus on their site for a few years, I've seen nothing against Arnold. Nothing against Sanford either or Larry Craig - just quick statements and done with it.
And regarding Mark Sanford and Larry Craig: honestly, what matters of policy were to be said? Did you expect them to dig into lurid details of sex scandals that had nothing especially to do with policy-making? Now, if one of them had been pushing for legalized adultery or prostitution, THEN you'd see FOTF leap to action, I'd think.
And the dropping of people they don't agree with? You are right - they preached against McCain until he was the only option, and then he was the darling again.
Um... my memory tells me that the difference was not "he's the only one, so he's now our darling"; but "he brought in Sarah Palin, so we'll give him another chance". Remember?
And supporting Brown - who's more liberal than a few Dems in the Senate.
And you assume they supported Brown only because he was GOP? The fact that he was far less pro-death than the alternative (and stood to derail the "death-care" bill) didn't strike you as relevant?
Do you see where a person can make the case that they get some power from promoting the right instead of hitting both sides hard?
Yes, but not a reasonable case. They support the GOP only to the extent that the GOP promotes/supports Christian values and stands athwart anti-Christian values. I think that's rather obvious.
hope you're getting well again.
:) Thanks. I'm working on it...Posted by: Paladin at February 8, 2010 11:49 AM
"In our country, that's sadly true (with vanishingly few exceptions--such as Rep Bart Stupak, who's resisted tremendous pressure to defend life); to vote Democratic is to vote for a party whose very platform enshrines the murder of unborn children as a "right" that should never be impaired by the government. No sane Christian could be sanguine about that."
And we've come full circle again - as I would now argue that the GOP isn't sincere about doing anything to curb abortions anyways (20 of 28 years in the WH, and what massive progress has been made? Furthermore, with votes in SD and Colorado, and the welcome reception of the GOP for bringing in a pro-choice Republican in MA - I just don't see a workable blueprint from the right - but again, we've gone through all of this).
The rest of your post?
Focus has boiled down the Bible to two positions - homosexuality and abortion. I agree with Jill Wallis - the Bible is much more complex than that. I can certainly understand and support legit Christians voting for both parties as I don't think either can say they truly line up with God's values in everything that they do.
And we've come full circle again - as I would now argue that the GOP isn't sincere about doing anything to curb abortions anyways (20 of 28 years in the WH, and what massive progress has been made?
But... surely you see the chasm of difference between "lack of massive progress" and "promoting baby-killing with every ounce of their being"?? I'm not sure why the wildly off-kilter proportion doesn't flag your attention in any meaningful way... (?)
Furthermore, with votes in SD and Colorado, and the welcome reception of the GOP for bringing in a pro-choice Republican in MA - I just don't see a workable blueprint from the right - but again, we've gone through all of this).
In one sense, we're in total agreement: the fact that abortion-tolerant people have been elected (either to the GOP or the Democratic party) are extremely bad things. If it helps: I think it's completely licit for someone to refuse to vote for such individuals (on the ground that they can't bear to cast a positive vote for an abortion-tolerant candidate); but I don't think it's mandatory. It's also allowable for someone to hold their nose, and vote for such candidates... IF their sole aim is to prevent an even worse evil from occurring (such as the election of the rabidly pro-abortion Martha Coakley, for instance).
Could someone decline to vote for the GOP in such cases? Absolutely! But that would leave only two options: vote for a pro-life third-party alternative (such as the Constitution party), or don't vote. Under no circumstances could anyone "barter" their vote toward a pro-death Democrat simply on the pretext that they "prefer the Dem attitude toward the poor".
Focus has boiled down the Bible to two positions - homosexuality and abortion.
I think you know that this is a caricature, and a crude and crass one, at that. No one who has "followed FOTF for years" could seriously make such a sweeping statement like that. I assume you're exaggerating for the sake of emphasis?
I agree with Jill Wallis - the Bible is much more complex than that.
And you assume that Dr. Dobson, et al., don't know that?
I can certainly understand and support legit Christians voting for both parties as I don't think either can say they truly line up with God's values in everything that they do.
But there's the significant issue of moral priority to consider! That's been the basis of most of my comments here, in fact: social security reform, tax reform, etc., simply don't compare at all in moral weight to the crime of abortion, euthanasia, and even the attempted "normalization of homosexuality". No: one can't licitly "vote for a pro-abort Dem" because they like the campaign speeches about "being more civil", "fixing corruption in Washington", "feeding the poor" (as good a goal as that is), and the like!Posted by: Paladin at February 9, 2010 2:59 PM
You get better with your cold, and then I catch one. Been down and out for a couple of days, but seem to be rebounding now. Anyway - a couple of points:
"Promoting baby-killing with every ounce of their being" - now for a smart person, that seems like a pretty dramatic, over the top statement.
Now, I agree with much of what you say from there on out if abortion was on the fence. If the law flipped every President, and abortion was either legal for all, or illegal for all, I think your grand statements about being a party of death hold weight. But that simply isn't the case. Abortion is legal no matter which party is in office - has been for decades, and there seems to be no end in sight. Even if R v Wade was overturned tomorrow, do you see states rushing out and passing laws to ban abortion?
So I look in terms of what policies might decrease abortions - wage equality, health care, job protection for families, education funding.
Your path is certainly an option - maybe years down the road, laws will flip and states will start banning abortion. In the mean time, there's other factors at play that I wish more people looked into, studied, and worked with. Abortion is legal in Germany and the Netherlands, and their rates is less than half of what we have here in the US.
Last thoughts - the laws of a pro-abort Democrat and an anti-abort Republican are pretty much the same, are they not? 20 or 28 years the GOP had the Presidency, and I don't see the difference in federal abortion laws. So again, you throw out tough language, but is there any real difference?
Focus - again, I'm talking the political arm of Focus - Citizenlink and the Drive Thru blog. Over half the posts are regarding homosexuality. Maybe I did exaggerate - seems to me they really are one issue, with a few issues that get lip service from time to time.Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at February 14, 2010 10:08 AM