The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Channel 08

Matthew 25 Network Expands Advertising



By Ed O'Keefe
The progressive Matthew 25 Network has launched a new Web site and next week plans its largest radio ad buy to date as it continues its efforts to woo Christian voter support for Barack Obama.

"Can you be pro-life and support Senator Obama?" asks Doug Kmiec in the new radio ad. "Barack Obama knows a bad economy is tragic for human life and women facing the moral tragedy of abortion. They need tangible help, not condemnation. Too many unborn lives are being lost as we wait for judges to get it right."

A former aide to President Reagan, Kmiec has sparked controversy for his advocacy of Obama.

While group spokeswoman Mara Vanderslice notes that "some most recent polling has come out that shows the values issues have dropped by a great deal," she says that most voters, no matter their religion, seem more concerned than before about health care, the economy and other domestic concerns.

"I think there's many who are pro-life, would like to see Roe overturned, however they've been frustrated by the Republicans' efforts and talk on this issue," she said. Those voters may see Obama's support for an expansion of child care, education and health care issues as a more practical approach to reducing unwanted pregnancies and abortions. The group has launched ProLifeProObama.com in an effort to promote those beliefs.

Other Democratic groups have made similar efforts online and on Christian radio with mixed results and some resistance.

Next week, following its latest fundraising efforts, Matthew 25 Network plans to buy air time on Christian, country and "easy listening" radio stations in Grand Rapids, the Detroit area and Western parts of Michigan, Pittsburgh and Scranton, Pa. and the Cleveland and Youngstown, Ohio regions.

The group has aired other radio and TV spots over the course of the cycle, promoting Obama's family values and trying to convince evangelicals that Obama's policies are in sync with their beliefs.

Posted at 2:00 PM ET on Oct 2, 2008  | Category:  Channel 08
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Conservative Activists Launch Ad Questioning Obama Judicial Appointments | Next: Palin's High Stakes Night


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Obama is not just your run of the mill pro-abortion guy. He is EXTREME. His record shows it. In his own words his number one priority when he gets into office is to enact FOCA! -- not the economy, not the war, not any other initiative. His #1 priority is that American taxpayers pay for abortions and that there are no limits whatsoever on abortions, including the most disgusting form (if one form a can even be more disgusting than all others) partial birth abortions. And Obama's record shows he vigilantly worked against the Born Alive act which was to protect the lives of new babies born of botched abortions -- he callously pushed for the continued practice of leaving these babies to suffer uncared for in a utility closet -- for hours, even days. This is only Obama, this is not Hillary, this is not Schumer,this is not Biden -- this is not something that any pro-choice liberal voted for -- JUST Obama -- and he passionately stood for his cause.

Kmiec, you turn my stomach.

Posted by: scecil1 | October 6, 2008 6:45 PM

rooster54:
"If you have so much money to give, maybe you took more than your share to begin with. We liberals use government to try to right those injustices."

Thank you, Rooster54. I could not have come up with a more concise definition of liberalism idiocy if I had tried all morning. In other words, if you work hard and earn more money than your neighbor, you are 'greedy' and it's an "injustice" that needs to be righted!

I think you need to re-take American History....maybe a couple times...to learn how our country became the most prosperous nation on the planet. HINT: it wasn't on the back of your seriously misguided communal ideology.

You should look to the Soviet Union of old to see the consequence of a government who implemented your beliefs.

And these are the words of an Obama supporter. That should tell you all you need to know....

Posted by: dbw1 | October 6, 2008 10:38 AM

urban4:

You have twice referred to "the 5th commandment", although your 'cherry-picked' theology betrays your lack of comprehension.

How about this: I invite you to read the first five books of the Old Testament.

Then, if you want to continue with the contention that the 5th commandment was given as an instruction to secular governments to guide public policy in dealing with proven criminals, we can have that discussion.

Maybe we can also then have a discussion then of why you think the "5th commandment" applies to the implementation of the death penalty, but for some reason you want to conveniently ignore the same commandment's place in discussing the abortion issue....

Posted by: dbw1 | October 6, 2008 10:22 AM

dbw1-

If you have so much money to give, maybe you took more than your share to begin with.

We liberrals use government to try to right those injustices. There are lots of people who work harder than you for less, and have thereby contributed more than you before they make donations. God's laws run deeper than you apparently think. The Old Testament Jubilee was God using government to redistribute wealth. Thanks for giving back some of what you took though.

Posted by: rooster54 | October 3, 2008 12:43 PM

Free choice doesn't mandate abortion. Each person answers to God only for their own actions. Supporting McCain, on the other hand, is to actively participate in murdering people through war and economic injustice.

Posted by: rooster54 | October 3, 2008 6:08 AM

Posted by: dbw1 | October 2, 2008 8:37 PM |

Can you provide a source for McCain/Palin that allows for health and rape exemption? The web site does not seem to mention this but it does say "end abortion".

However, if you maintain that abortion is murder, but allow for abortion in case of health issues or rape aren't you violating the 5th commandment again?


Posted by: urban4 | October 2, 2008 8:57 PM

dbw1 | October 2, 2008 8:15 PM
No, actually, your line of thinking is flawed. I don't approve of capital punishment, but it does not mean that I approve of murder.
I do believe the following:
1. Killing the murderer does not resurrect the victim, but does make you a murderer. Which part of the 5th commandment do you not understand?
2. Life in prison is an appropriate punishment for murder.
3. You can't take back the capital punishment in case the accused turns out not to be the murderer (plenty of examples of this).


Posted by: urban4 | October 2, 2008 8:44 PM

urban4:
"My understanding is that there are several anti-abortion groups that want total ban on abortion. Is that not right?"

No. Most evangelical pro-lifer's allow for abortion in the case of risk to the mother's health (as is also Palin's view). And actually, most also allow for abortion in the case of rape or incest.

I haven't seen recent studies, but back when I paid more attention most every study would find that 90% of more of abortions are for convenience. Yet the pro-choice zealots appeal to the fringe 10% of cases to protect the convenience of abortion on demand in 90% of abortions.

I'm sure you could find some fringe radicals who support 100% ban in all cases, but then projecting those extreme views on McCain/Palin is like saying Al Qeada represents all Muslims.

Posted by: dbw1 | October 2, 2008 8:37 PM

rooster54:
"To humbly follow the teachings of Jesus is pretty much what we "liberals" do; so it's no surprise we get persecuted by the Greedy Old Pharisees for trying to help our fellow human beings have better lives."

The self-righteousness of liberals to constantly pretend that they have more compassion than their counter-part conservatives, just because they are willing to take money from others to give it to someone else via a government hand-out program. In other words, liberals are very compasionate....with other peoples money.

"Rooster54", my wife and I gave 12x as much to charity last year than Joe Biden, on less than 1/3rd his income. We choose to take care of our fellow human beings directly rather than have yet another government agency squander our money.

What % of your income did you give to help out the less fortunate last year? I'm trying to withhold judgment, but if you are a liberal there is a great statistical chance you glibly support fleecing the populace via taxes so the government can do it so you don't have to, yet then turn around and feel smug about "helping your fellow human beings" when you have personally done zilch.

Posted by: dbw1 | October 2, 2008 8:28 PM

This is from the McCain Web site:
"However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion."
It is not qualified. Ending abortion, period.

Posted by: urban4 | October 2, 2008 8:24 PM

dbw1,
My understanding is that there are several anti-abortion groups that want total ban on abortion. Is that not right?

Posted by: urban4 | October 2, 2008 8:21 PM

urban4:
"I submit the following..."Pro-life" is misleading. The correct term is anti-abortion. For example most "pro-life" groups support the death penalty, in which case they are pro-death."

And for folks like urban4 who are incapable of correctly aligned logical thoughts, I submit the following:
'Pro-choice' is misleading. The correct term is 'pro-murder' of innocent unborn babies. For example most "pro-choice" groups are against the death penalty, in which case they are pro-murderer and pro-rapist.

Next....

Posted by: dbw1 | October 2, 2008 8:15 PM

urban4:
"I don't see how anyone could dispute the right of a woman to end her pregnancy if it jeopardizes her health."

And no one does....what's disputed are the other 90%+ abortions-of-convenience.

Posted by: dbw1 | October 2, 2008 8:11 PM

urban4, can a practicing abortionist (by definition) be anti-abortion?

Posted by: MarkInAustin | October 2, 2008 7:40 PM

rooster45,
Exactly! I couldn't have said it better!

Posted by: urban4 | October 2, 2008 6:22 PM

Many who call themselves conservatives would, in their self righteous zeal, unknowingly kill Jesus all over again.

It's an enormous stretch to remake the Gospel into the unloving doctrine of the religious right.

To humbly follow the teachings of Jesus is pretty much what we "liberals" do; so it's no surprise we get persecuted by the Greedy Old Pharisees for trying to help our fellow human beings have better lives.

Posted by: rooster54 | October 2, 2008 6:14 PM

Consider also: of the 46 million abortions per year that occur worldwide, 20 million are performed in places where abortion is illegal. Thus, the legal status of abortion may not have as large effect on the abortion rate as some believe.

Posted by: urban4 | October 2, 2008 5:51 PM

I submit the following.
1. "Pro-life" is misleading. The correct term is anti-abortion.
For example most "pro-life" groups support the death penalty, in which case they are pro-death.
2. Calling an embryo or a fetus a "child" or an "unborn child" is also misleading.
3. The life of an embryo or a fetus is conditional on the life of the pregnant mother. Thus, the life, health and the rights of the mother have to take precedence over the fetus.
I don't see how anyone could dispute the right of a woman to end her pregnancy if it jeopardizes her health.

Posted by: urban4 | October 2, 2008 5:36 PM

gator-ron:

Who is more consistent:
- the conservative who believes innocent unborn children should be protected, while simultaneously supporting the death penalty for criminals who bludgeon and rape their victims, therefore putting the ultimate value on life (you lose yours, if you take someone else's)?

- or a liberal, such as yourself, who believes those same criminals deserve to live, but innocent unborn children don't deserve the same right to live.

Your liberal ideology on these two issues is inconsistent. How can you support it? I mean you can't with any system of logic. But how do you try to support it?

Posted by: dbw1 | October 2, 2008 4:57 PM

...and notice that the author of the article kindly refers to the Matthew 25 group as "progressive".

In other words, to our esteemed elite media, you progress as a Christian when you start embracing their liberal ideology.

Posted by: dbw1 | October 2, 2008 4:49 PM

I would very interested for a Matthew 25 defender to come on the board and rationally argue their position from a Biblical perspective.

I don't expect agnostics or atheists to care one way or the other, but would be really curious to hear someone from Matthew 25 lay out their case for why a Bible-believing Christian (who are all numb-skull idiots anyway, if you believe liberals and the media) should feel compelled to support Obama over McCain.

And to be clear....I'm not saying a Christian can't support Obama. Vote for whoever you like. Just interested to hear their perspective on what the "Biblical" support for doing so is...

Posted by: dbw1 | October 2, 2008 4:44 PM

Gator-ron:

Your logic is so seriously flawed, it's hard to know where to start. Since you are so steeped in liberal orthodoxy, I'm sure this point will be difficult, if not impossible, for you to understand.

Being against the death penalty does not equal pro-life. If you attempt to argue that the lives of horrendous criminals who murder innocent citizens are worth protecting from legally sanctioned punishment of death (which puts the ultimate value on innocent life), while simultaneously arguing that innocent unborn children should be legally put to death....you have a moral compass that is skewed so far out of whack it's no wonder you support the politicians you support.

I have no qualm with fellow Christians supporting Obama, if they look in the mirror and determine that the values they may share with Obama (economy, tax policy, foreign relations) outweigh the values they don't share with him.

But don't be such an imbecile and try to pretend that someone who supports killing unborn children and is against the death penalty can be defined as "pro-life". Surely your intellectual capacity is greater than that of a grapefruit....

Posted by: dbw1 | October 2, 2008 4:37 PM

Sure. Even an abortionist is "pro-life". Just depends on what the definition of "is" is. You people changed the definition of "gay" too.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | October 2, 2008 4:29 PM

Gator-ron, I know who Kmiec is. Using your "educated, nuanced" logic, I guess even an abortionist can be pro-life. Little wonder.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | October 2, 2008 2:57 PM |

Mark- I did not give enough credit for I thought that you would not realize that many if not most people who are for the right of a woman to control her own body are also pro life. After all, as you know, many women's rights activist are also against the death penalty. That involves, as I know you are aware, an inarguably human life. There is no religious theory but indisputable fact.

One can be against abortion and still feel that it is immoral to regulate another person's body. That one I am sure is bewilder to a man who sees no grey.

You realize Mark you told us an untruth. You said that you could not be pro-life and be for Obama, knowing it was untrue. It is one thing to distort and dissemble and it is another thing to knowingly lie.

Posted by: Gator-ron | October 2, 2008 4:17 PM

Hoorah for Matthew 25 for bridging the gap between extreme prejudice, abandonment, and condemnation on the one side and true kindness and thoughtful problem solving on the other! Never were these words truer: It takes a village. Life, love, tolerance, peace. Obama's got the positive pro-active message!

Posted by: leap2three | October 2, 2008 3:35 PM

That depends on how we get there. If we simply kill all women of child-bearing age, that will reduce abortions to zero. That would not be very pro-life, though.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | October 2, 2008 3:07 PM

Even if Roe is overturned, states will still be free to keep abortion legal. Desperate women from states that ban abortion will flock to NY, California, etc. and the same number of abortions will occur.

If Obama is elected and women can now get health insurance and child care, they will be less likely to feel forced to get an abortion.

I beleive abortions will go down in an Obama administration. Isn't that what pro-life voters want?

Posted by: dcwsano | October 2, 2008 3:04 PM

Gator-ron, I know who Kmiec is. Using your "educated, nuanced" logic, I guess even an abortionist can be pro-life. Little wonder.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | October 2, 2008 2:57 PM


"Can you be pro-life and support Senator Obama?"

No.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | October 2, 2008 2:17 PM

Doug Kmiec is doing exactly that. He is a Law Professor at Pepperdine University and a leader in the conservative academic community. He is a former Deputy Attorney General in Bush I and Reagan administrations. A man whose opinion I respect but with whom I do not agree with that often

He furthermore feels that Obama would make a better choice of Supreme Court Justice than McCain would. Though Obama is for the right of a women to control her own body he has a nuanced position which someone like yourself would have difficulty grasping..

So I would suggest that although your thought processes would suggest to you that the answer is no, it is yes,

To find Kmeic's position on Obama and some of the legal issues of the conservative movement google Doug Kmiec aand Obama. It is in a law review article in the last week in March.

Mark there is a whole world out there beyond what you and your ignorant hero Palin are aware of. You would be surprised how many educated Republicans are going to vote for Obama.

Posted by: Gator-ron | October 2, 2008 2:45 PM

How about this question: can you be pro-life but actually be an abortionist?

Posted by: MarkInAustin | October 2, 2008 2:33 PM

"Can you be pro-life and support Senator Obama?"

No.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | October 2, 2008 2:17 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company