The ad itself has been kept secret, so we don't know exactly what it will be, nor when it will run, but it ignited a firestorm of criticism from the ***cough cough*** tolerant Left. In fact, groups like Planned Parenthood were so offended by Pam Tebow's choice of giving her baby a chance to live that they will be airing their own ads that supposedly honor women and families by encouraging them to have abortions. Or something like that.
After these came out, we found out that there will actually be at least one additional ad by the Tebows, though they were all taped over a month ago, so it's not a 'response' but was planned all along. Apparently, FotF is going all out on this, the biggest television stage in the world.
Here's the point: the Tebows are coming forward with a simple message of LIFE. The oh-so-tolerant Left is throwing a supremely nasty hissy fit and once again coming down on the side of death. The reality is that when these two messages are put side by side, I think it'll be pretty evident which one wins the day.
The bottom line is well stated by pro-choice WaPo columnist Sally Jenkins:
I’m pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I’ve heard in the past week, I’ll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the “National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time.” For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do.And that's why this ad is acceptable. This is not about some abstract choice, it's about heart-wrenching choices of people. The Left's outrage at the Tebow ad(s) proves only that when PP and the tolerant Left says they're pro-choice, they really mean they're pro-abortion. They only approve of the ability to choose if you choose what they want you to. The reality is that though the Left says pretty things, their actions are full of ugliness, and simply shining the light on that ugliness makes them viciously angry. The Left adheres to a bankrupt philosophy that incubates a culture of death, and this is one more example that unequivocally underlines the point.
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. Pam Tebow has a genuine pro-choice story to tell. She got pregnant in 1987, post-Roe v. Wade, and while on a Christian mission in the Philippines, she contracted a tropical ailment. Doctors advised her the pregnancy could be dangerous, but she exercised her freedom of choice and now, 20-some years later, the outcome of that choice is her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical.
Pam Tebow and her son feel good enough about that choice to want to tell people about it. Only, NOW says they shouldn’t be allowed to. Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikini selling beer is the right one. I would like to meet the genius at NOW who made that decision. On second thought, no, I wouldn’t. ...
His critics find this intrusive, and say the Super Bowl is no place for an argument of this nature. “Pull the ad,” NOW President Terry O’Neill said. “Let’s focus on the game.”
Trouble is, you can’t focus on the game without focusing on the individuals who play it — and that is the genius of Tebow’s ad. The Super Bowl is not some reality-free escape zone. Tebow himself is an inescapable fact: Abortion doesn’t just involve serious issues of life, but of potential lives, Heisman trophy winners, scientists, doctors, artists, inventors, Little Leaguers — who would never come to be if their birth mothers had not wrestled with the stakes and chosen to carry those lives to term. And their stories are every bit as real and valid as the stories preferred by NOW.
On a related note, the One is planning a big Super Bowl party at the White House. It's a 'bipartisan' party that includes a single Republican. Ignore the fact that that Republican was the only one to vote in favor of DemCare back when it passed the House. Purely a coincidence. Because the Left is the tolerant bunch, you know.
But now to the game itself. Since the Chiefs were amazingly suck-tastic this year, I decided to choose a second favorite team to follow. For a few different reasons, I selected the Indianapolis Colts. Needless to say, my mood has been considerably better since that decision!
From what I've read and seen, it appears that this could be a really fun Super Bowl. Most people seem to like both teams. It's hard not to appreciate the road taken by the Saints and Drew Brees (though I still hold a slight grudge against him for leading Purdue to a victory over KSU in the Alamo Bowl all those years ago), and it's impossible not to respect Manning's leadership and accomplishments. Both offenses are high-powered, and it seems the defenses will be key - whichever D slows down the opposing offense the best will probably create a win. One key factor is the fact that the Colts have been here before, and are more used to playing in big games. If the hoopla and hype has penetrated the Saints' inexperienced enthusiasm, they could have problems with nerves and jitters, and letting the Colts jump out front early could be the kiss of death. Of course, combined with the right mental toughness, sometimes inexperience simply grants you enough ignorance to miss the fact that you should be the second place team. Which will it be? Dunno...that's why they play the games!
On a side note - I hope the (non-Tebow) commercials are funny. They've been pretty lame for the last couple years, a pale shadow of the side-splitters from several years ago.
Anyway, this should be a battle of two outstanding quarterbacks, two excellent offenses, and two aggressive defenses. It should be a fun event, and I'm looking forward to it! My completely unqualified prediction:
Colts win in a shoot-out, 37-34.
Hm. The only Tim Tebow ad I saw was this one, and it certainly wasn't what was advertised as the big controversial one. Maybe I just wasn't paying attention when it aired...it was that kind of night.
Anyway, to the game...
Saints win, 31-17!!!
There were about three critical plays on which the Colts just didn't execute, and in a game of two excellent teams, that's all it takes. Give the Saints full credit for ingenuity - it's an extraordinary thing to throw off someone as talented and professional as Manning.
And now, the long darkness of the off-season sets in...
Upon further reflection, I should have known better than to predict a Colts win, what with all the talk of Manning being the greatest QB in NFL history. Anytime in recent memory that I can recall there being a lot of talk about 'the greatest _________ ever', the object of said greatness loses. Just ask the 2003 Oklahoma Sooners, the 2005 USC Trojans, or the 2007 New England Patriots how that worked out for them. Looks like the Sports Illustrated cover curse might have a more subtle companion that sports teams/figures need to worry about...
Ah-hah! This is why the Colts lost:
President Barack Obama said Sunday that the Indianapolis Colts "have to be favored" in the Super Bowl, even though he has a "soft spot" for the New Orleans Saints.Mystery solved. I really, really hope Obama campaigns hard for Democrats this summer...
Obama's Super Bowl prediction was based on his opinion that the Colts have "perhaps the best quarterback in history."