So that was it? Really? The infamous Tebow-Focus on the Family commercial? Really??!!

[Perky]

I had no problem with it. Hardly controversial.

[Staph]

1. I much prefered

the Betty White / Abe Vigoda Snickers commercial just before it.

[enki23]

2. it was an advertisement for a partisan political organization.

and they've denied others in the past because they weren't republican friendly. the commercial itself isn't the problem. the bullshit foisted on us by the conservative media is.

[Perky]

3. but it was pretty apolitical I guess is my point.

[timeforpeace]

16. Isn't it ironic how the incandescent rage brought so much attention to it.

[Perky]

37. Which probably was their point all along

[Atman]

4. It looks like it was part of a series...

Will there be more during the game? Seemed like an intro to more commercials. Gotta admit, it was only offensive because of how CBS helped them get it on the air while refusing other issues ads. The commercial itself was pretty tame.

.

[Perky]

6. I am not even sure if it was an issue ad,

[DURHAM D]

5. The Tebows are just the sweet and loving delivery system for the website.

Did you visit it yet?

[annabanana]

7. There is another one, I understand.

Perhaps it will run later in the broadcast.

[Kber]

18. I thought there was supposed to be another one, but I guess I missed it

Actually, I thought the commercials were generally weak this year. Luckily the game was darn good.

[CTyankee]

8. Yes! will everybody please calm down?

A woman made a choice. that's it. What's the deal?

Yes, I know the network wouldn't allow moveon's ad. OK, that's another issue. but the ad was about choice. Planned Parenthood said it best, capsulized, "Trust women."

Pleez, can we just let go of this commercial? Enough!

[Atman]

9. That's the irony of it all...it was a PRO CHOICE ad!

Be sure to point that out to your fundie co-workers at the water cooler tomorrow.

.

[niyad]

10. she made a CHOICE--which fungus (aka focus on the family) and all the other fundy, woman-hating

pro-forced birthers out there, want to deny to other women.

[DRoseDARs]

13. She made the choice...to not break the law. Abortion has been illegal in the Philippines since 1930.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Philippines

[slackmaster]

33. Do you really believe that's why she made the choice that she did?

Not only could she simply have flown back to the USA (even Hawaii) to get a legal abortion, she could easily have gotten an illegal one in the PI (which is done by thousands of women there every year in spite of the law).

[emilyg]

11. Enough is right. Thank you.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Nope sorry can't let go. Theocratic Right Wing Ads are allowed

but anything from the left is banned. Nope. Can't let go.

[CTyankee]

31. That is a valid concern and IMO should have been the focus of the outrage.

What I want people to let go of is the ad itself. We should be talking more about how wonderful it is that we have choice in this country and that no one should be forced into one or the other options. But my argument is that that point gets lost and WE get castigated for somehow being pro-abortion. THAT is what I think progressives need to get away from...

[joeglow3]

14. I am mad at how they played so many on the left for fools.

Run by itself, it would have been forgotten by Monday morning. However, all the groups that threw a fit gave them millions in free advertising and sent millions more to their website in the last 2 weeks.

Played for fools.

[DRoseDARs]

15. Well considering no one is hammering Ms. Tebow on the fact that abortion has been illegal since 1930

...in the Philippines, I say many have made fools of themselves for buying her bullshit hook line and sinker.

[liquid diamond]

24. Outlawing abortion does not stop women from having them.

[kimmylavin]

28. Yes...

but it does throw a bit of water onto her claim that doctors in the Philippines URGED her to have an abortion, since they themselves would have been criminals under the law.

[timeforpeace]

17. As the saying goes, emoting is no substitute for thinking. Too much emoting on the left, again.

[Forkboy]

21. Another knock on the Left by timeforRWtalkingpoints.

[road2000]

26. Yep.

My right-wing fundie brother who calls himself an enlightened libertarian continuously accuses us on the left of "emoting." That comment sent up a red flag for me, too.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

19. What riled most people is CBS's double standard.

They refused any SB ad with liberal leanings. But nutcase central FotF is a-OK. THAT is the problem.

[Forkboy]

20. +100

[alp227]

22. I agree, and the message is really really misguided.

It was not only Mrs. Tebow's choice that brought life to Tim; it was also because she was a loving, caring mother that Tebow is the talented athlete who he is today! Where are the ads for responsible parenting, something that is clearly lacking in the US today.

[cherokeeprogressive]

27. Let's not count the chickens before the eggs hatch...

Did any ad that was refused by CBS contain the same 2.5 mil/30 seconds that the Tebow ad paid?

[Perky]

29. But there was nothing wrong with the ad, It reall was not even an issue add

It did not take a political position... While it was from an issues group, the only thing that CBS ought to be looking at is the content of the ad itself. It was pretty damn benign.

If you can come up with evidence of a double standard being applied. I will be happy to listen. But I am not sure what type of add that has been denied in the past would have been similar enough for the network to say "No" to.

[slackmaster]

34. They refused an ad for a commercial dating service for gay men, and an erotic ad from PETA

Apples and oranges, CPD.

Let me know when they refuse to run one from Planned Parenthood that advertises their counseling and contraceptive services, or simply advocates safe sex.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

39. That's actually an excellent idea. PPH should do just that.

So there wouldn't be plausible deniability for the double standard like there is now. "Ooooh, but those OTHER ads are DIFFERENT! No, it's not because they lean liberal. I swear!"

[jmowreader]

41. I would have refused that ad too, and I'm for the rights of all people

I would have told 'em, "bring us an ad with AT LEAST the production values of 'Is It a Good Idea to Microwave This?' and we'll talk."

[liquid diamond]

23. Much ado about nothing.

:rofl:

[fishwax]

25. the messenger was the problem

That and the fact that progressive organizations have been refused in the past.

The actual content of the commercial was of relatively little importance. It was a branding ad. Just as they never show beer in those commercials with the Clydesdales, but the whole point is to sell Budweiser. They never mentioned pro-life politics or abortion here, but the whole point was to sell an organization that espouses bigotry. I can't blame people for being upset about that.

[marshall]

30. Maybe now the progressive organizations will follow suit

And make equally innocuous commercials.

[CTyankee]

32. When we do that, we win. And we will always win on the merits.

It's what some organizations on the left have been trying valiantly to do with health care reform with a strong public option. When 70% of the public say they want a public option, it's hard for the right to argue it...

[fishwax]

35. the United Church of Christ video wasn't rejected because it wasn't innocuous

It was rejected because it suggested churches shouldn't exclude gay people. I don't think moveon.org's proposed ad was over the top either.

[Perky]

36. If the UCC ad simply said the Churches should be inclusive

without referencing people who are gay. that would be an ad similar to the Tebow ad. IMHO

[marshall]

38. There's over the top, and then there's under the radar

The Tebow ad was completely under the radar. The only thing controversial about it was its sponsor.

[E-Z-B]

40. Isn't Focus on the Family having budget problems? And they spend $2.5m on this?

What was the point?