television ads

Tebow Super Bowl Ad Follow-Up

Speaking of television ads, it wasn't that long ago when the abortion-on-demand crowd was howling at the pro-life Super Bowl ad from Focus On The Family that featured star college football quarterback Tim Tebow and his mom. The fact that they tried to block it gave up the lie (if we needed any proof) that they are not "pro-choice" (having a baby, of course, being a choice), but rather pro-abortion at all costs. So, what was the outcome of it all? If this was an ad promoting a secular progressive cause, the mainstream media would have produced all sorts of follow-ups, documentaries, blog posts, etc., detailing how successful it was, whether or not it really was. That it was a pro-life campaign, we didn't expect any subsequent media, positive or otherwise. But new Focus President Jim Daly issued a letter the other day with some interesting notes about the ad's success:

. . . the network would not permit the word "abortion" to even be mentioned. So, if we didn't want to play by their rules, we couldn't run the spot. ... there had always been a two-part strategy surrounding the ad campaign. Our main goal was to drive viewers to FocusOnTheFamily.comwhere the full story of Mr. and Mrs. Tebow was featured. Over 1.5 million people have viewed the online movie.

. . . new research data that indicated the Super Bowl ad caused over 5 million viewers to reconsider their view of the legality/morality of abortion.

Those impressive numbers spell success. Congratulations to Focus for a good strategy and a well played hand.

While Liberals Lecture Us, Look At How They Treat Their Own

It's as if you can't turn on the television without seeing one of those very cute Progressive Insurance Company ads. You know, the one with the borderline-nutty-clerk-who's-kind-of-endearing who helps equally quirky people find the type of insurance they need at the lowest market price possible? Cute, huh? What you may not know, however, is that Progressive Insurance, which ostensibly champions free enterprise, was founded — and not coincidentally named — by a big time liberal. His son, Peter Lewis (Accuracy In Media) has taken it much, much further. Not only has he been a powerful advocate for out-there causes, such as pot legalization (RightSideNews), but in recent years has partnered with his fellow billionaire buddy George Soros to fund with tens of millions of dollars (and not always ethically, see Politico), such hyper liberal groups as the ACLU, MoveOn.org and America Coming Together. (They ante upped $10 million each for ACT). In fact, they rank as the top two contributors to so-called 527 groups (Free Republic).

Of course, the whole idea of their support of these liberal groups is to get people elected who will institute government control over our lives — health care, anyone? — and tell us what to do because government knows exactly what's best for us, right? So, if he believes top-down is best, certainly Mr. Lewis (Foundation Watchtreats his employees exceedingly well, the system works flawlessly and they love it. Well . . . as it turns out . . .  not exactly.

According to JobVent.com, Progressive rates as the worst place to work — as judged by employees themselves — and not by just a bit, either. It outranks the second worst place to work by considerable margins in several statistical categories. It seems like Mr. Lewis runs Progressive as he would his vision of government-run utopia with the same predictable results.

    progressive girl

The Progressive Insurance Girl: You'd be a bit quirky, too, if your employer micromanaged everything you did and was bent on creating a "progressive America" as well.

Of the whopping 1,425 reviews left at JobVent.com, the leading site for employee job reviews, negative comments about Progressive outpaced the positive ones by about a 2-1 ratio. Here's one comment from a California claims representative that has an uncanny parallel to liberalism in general and government-run health care in particular:

I felt more respected by my professors when I was in college. You can generally expect to be talked to like a 5 year old. The micromanaging is insane. The sad part is, they take good people and promote them to management where they become these scary corporate robot people. Basically, they drink A LOT of kool aid.

They cut the benefits last year and we were told in a powerpoint presentation by HR that they were cut to "align" our company with the industry standards. You can expect lots of lies, and propaganda.

Is the first part not quintessential liberalism? Patronizing, arrogant and we-know-what's-best-for-you — and the people lording it over you are co-opted bureaucrats following the party line for the glory of state control. The second part is exactly how government-run health care will work — start you off fine, then the steady rate of rationing and, when the people inevitably speak up, we'll be told (like we are now) it's so much better than the old way.

Progressive's ads are fun, but odd. Now, we know why. Apparently, it's an accurate reflection of the company . . . on many, many levels.

Wagner Ducks Debate With Bolling Over Rumored Math Portion?

A lot of nonsense has been recklessly thrown around in the discussion over the reason Democrat Lieutenant Governor candidate Jody Wagner bailed on a scheduled debate in Prince William County with incumbent Republican Lieutenent Governor Bill Bolling. Sure, there were disputes between the two camps over rules, format, moderator, etc., but all were worked out. However, we have heard on the deepest of deep background that the non-negotiable from Ms. Wagner was the math test portion of the debate. Especially troubling to her were the proposed old school word problems. You know, exercises such as:

If tax collections come in at Y in Year 1, but are scheduled to come at X in Year 2, and X is six billion dollars less than Y, how much money do you spend in Year 2? 

And . . .

If you forecast revenue at Y amount in Year 2 and it comes in even lower in Year 3, forcing your boss, the governor, to make more unpopular budget cuts, even though you were warned not to project so much revenue, how soon do you leave your job as Secretary of Finance and run for statewide office in Year 4?

And, of course . . .

How many days does it take to remove a news release with false information from your Web site, even after the organization issuing it admits its mistake?

All kidding aside, we're greatly disappointed the debate didn't come off — in reality because Ms. Wagner wouldn't agree to a stipulation banning video from future television ads, a normally agreement in campaigns, used most recently in the gubernatorial debate in Fairfax — because we'd like Ms. Wagner a chance to finally be "clear" about her positions (libs seem to use that word a lot) and to finally begin "to communicate with the public,"  opportunities she has previously claimed she has not had.

Which leads us to ask, If candidate Y is down in the polls by X amount, and down in fundraising by Z amount, how many debates does she duck?