And up lifting.

If that ad makes your feel bad, there is something wrong with you.

Very positive ad.

Right?

I was amazed. I have never seen such a powerful pro-life Ad.

“The primary problem is that too many of what I’ll call “hereditary” Catholics are also “hereditary” Democrats. They have no idea what the Church of their mothers and fathers really teaches and how far the political party of their mothers and fathers has departed from those teachings. ”

EWTN talks about this fairly often. It seems to me that most Catholic converts (those who convert based on their own desire rather than pleasing a prospective spouse) usualy adhere to Catholic teaching better than most who are hereditary Catholics and only attend on Easter and Christmas.

There are also liberal and conservative Catholics. How the bishops let them get away with it is beyond me. I went to confession once at a liberal Catholic chuch and there was hardly anyone there. On another occasion, I went to a more conservative Catholic church and I had to wait about an hour.

I was interested in your point about weekly Catholics, so I researched the exit polls.

CNN’s show that weekly Catholics went 50% McCain, 49% Obama.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p2

(May have to navigate around the polls to get to it, it’s on page 2 of 7)

ABC had the same result:

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/ExitPolls2008#Pres_All

As a hereditary Catholic who gradually has moved to become an atheist (over about 10 years), I can’t say I’m all that surprised. I know many Catholics who are only nominally Catholic in terms of their belief in the Church’s interpretations of scripture. I also don’t know any that ever go to confession. I’m not sure if it’s more about the Catholic Church or about Catholics or what.

I’m a liberal and I come here because I like to see other points of view than the regular echo chambers of Kos and HuffPo and others (though I read them as well). And I’m ardently pro-choice. And yet I wholeheartedly agree that NBC ought to be airing this ad, especially in light of their decision to air the PETA ad. If it reminds people of the weight and consequences of a choice about abortion, it can be very helpful. While I believe abortion should be legal (with restrictions), I do not want anyone ever making that decision lightly or cavalierly. This ad helps ensure that does not happen.

Never liked “CINO.” Let’s make “Catholyc” stick. I started using this spelling back during the 2004 campaign here on RS when Kerry was the standard bearer for Catholycs. Streiff remembers, as I recall him citing it a couple years ago.

Inspired, obviously, by that strange breed known as “womyn.” But in this case it’s not just a childish re-spelling so that derogatory word “men” or “man” isn’t in the word, here it’s also quite practical. They choose not to really be Catholic (which, contra our Catholyc friends’ insistence, means holding with the adherence of faith to a certain set of “non-negotiables,” and having a healthy respect for the opinions of the hierarchy on a whole host of other issues on which there can be legitimate disagreement — and never confusing the two, even in the name of “conscience” or “public duty”) so why should they be saddled with the name Catholic?

So this term makes it easy — it’s not “Catholic” because they’re not Catholic — and it’s descriptive because it’s “Catholic with a ‘y’”… or “Catholic with a ‘why?’“…

Pelosi, Leahy, Durbin, Daschle, Kerry, Kennedy, and many others. All Catholycs.

and recut the baby movements to make it look like it’s dancing.

“A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” –Alexander Hamilton

Study at Redstate University

the” O” sign with his little hands.

Anyone belevie that Mat Lauer would have spent ten minutes of broadcast time licking the presidential boots if McCain hadn’t scored an own-goal by championing the TARP bull?

This is possibly the most effective ad in the history of the world, in my opinion.

Sure JFK was a Dem. But was he a lefty commie-lite like his brother Teddy the lady-killer? Or did he run to the right of Nixon in 1960, pass tax cuts to revitalize the economy, raise military spending to win the Cold War against the communists, and with his brother Bobby prosecute corrupt labor unions? Eventually, JFK got assassinated by an American Communist who had defected to the USSR, spent time in Cuba, and married a Russian girl. And his brother RFK was assassinated by a Palestinian communist who was retaliating for Israel’s victory in 1967 and Bobby Kennedy’s moral support for Israel.

Are today’s Dems, whose ideas spring straight from the fonts of George McGovern and Henry Wallace, willing to pay any price to ensure the spread of liberty around the world? Do they ask themselves and their victim groups, “ask not what your country can do, but what you can do for your country?” The contrast between JFK and today’s Dems is stark and should be played up just as often as the actual political party of Obama’s idol, Lincoln.

“A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” –Alexander Hamilton

Study at Redstate University

They’ve earned that pat on the back. And I would encourage you to sign up for their bulletins and email alerts as well, without regard to your church affiliation (or lack thereof). They are a great organization.

Rather than give an honest reason for their rejection (after all, as a private entity they can’t be compelled to accept advertising), they come up with a patently fraudulent rationale that had clearly been hastily formulated after-the-fact because they have already ignored that issue with PETA’s ad.

Sort of like Oprah’s rationale for not interviewing Palin (not that Palin would have been well-advised to go on her show) – rather than just admit to her preference for Obama. But that would have risked offending Republicans among her viewers, and in turn have possibly cause viewership and ad revenues to fall.

Similarly NBC real reason was the bureaucratic mentality of pretending to choose the high road when the real reason is to avoid taking an action that will risk offending a substantial viewer group.

You think this ad is patronizing? And manipulative? Heh.

I want to thank you for bouncing in with this comment. You have established your complete lack of any sense of reality or any ability to apply either logic or reason to a question.

You are the ultimate troll. And an ignorant and shameful one at that.

“I understand why NBC chose not to run the commercial. Personally, I think it’s in poor taste to use a pro-choice president as the poster child for the pro-life movement. I imagine there would be outrage over the ad.

To me, it’s the equivalent of a pro-choice group incorporating images of Sarah Palin into their ads to promote their agenda. If you want to win over pro-choicers find a better method than being patronizing toward them with manipulative imagery like in this ad.”

As much sense as this argument makes I still think you are wrong. Do you think it would matter who it was. If it wasn’t Obama and they used a star athlete or celebrity do you think NBC would air it then? Of course not. The Genius of the add is in using someone who is an icon, anything less then that and the add looses it’s point. NBC didn’t tell Catholic Vote, use someone else and we can air the add, they just no. And a pro-choice person would never use Sarah Palin or anyone in an add. The second pro-choice people got personal with their activism and tried to show specific people they would loose popularity instantly. They’re too weak to relate this issue to someone individuality, it wouldn’t be so easy for them advocate pro-choice if there were names attached to the babies.

Pray tell.

Because I’ve been thinking about this all day and I cannot for the life of me come up with one single, solitary glimmer of an idea for a “tasteful” ad that pertains to either side of the debate.

Abortion is, by definition, NOT IN GOOD TASTE. Good grief, how can we possibly discuss dead babies in a tasteful fashion?

Perhaps you think we should not discuss it? Pardon me while I iron my hanky, find my smelling salts, and pull on my white gloves.

And further, what images of Sarah Palin could a pro-abortion group run? I’m trying to picture that and cannot. Please be specific and graphic, because I am not understanding you, and therefore I suspect you are both disingenuous and passive aggressive. But please, lay your cards on the table and I will happily retract that.

NBC has *never* had a problem running ads or programs that I thought were in poor taste, what gives your sensibilities priority over mine?

Oxymoronic though “NBC News” may be.