Uh, oh. Those clever people at the Family Research Council have figured out that the popular cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants (a hit with my great nieces … if only they knew he won’t be interested when they’re grown up) will be starring in a “pro-homosexual video.” What next??? (Of course, it seems that Dr. Dobson got a bit confused, as the New York Times [requires simple registration] article indicates.)
And over at lewrockwell.com, the ever angry Christopher Manion is alerting the hellfire and brimstone crowd that George Bush is giving the religious right “The Cheney.” Why? Well, there are rumors that new Republican National Committee chair Ken Melman may be … “a homosexual.” Horrors! The evidence? Thirty eight years old and not married… Well, that’s evidence enough! As Manion bitterly warns Bush,
“Watch for evangelicals to return the favor when Bush’s ‘reforms’ of social security and taxes wind up on the rocks.”
To protest the election to the post of chairman of the Republican National Committee of someone rumored to be a you-know-what, that would only be reasonable.
Deep within those little yellow orifices lies the soul of a sponge who can change his sinful sinful ways! It’s sin that forces him into that… lifestyle. The fact that he’s around young children should outrage any self-respecting American. (And by self-respecting, we mean heterosexual at all times.)
Too bad that the perfectly decent expression ‘deviant lifestyle’ has turned into a euphemism for ‘homosexual’ in America. Here in Europe ‘deviant lifestyles’ refers to criminals, stinky people, rude dudes, and so on. But not ‘homosexual’.
Once again Tom proves himself incapable of objectivity in all things Rockwellian. Manion offers no judgment about Melman’s sexual orientation. He simply reports that the nomination of Melman, widely rumored to be homosexual (not merely because he’s 38 and unmarried), is a singnal to Evangelicals that the Administration doesn’t care what they think. Tom uses this to imply that Manion himself is hostile to homosexuals.
Man, are you paranoid!
Oh, this is just too easy. “Tom uses this to imply that Manion himself is hostile to homosexuals.”
First, read the linked message at http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/007155.html.
Then, read this passage from another angry Manion Missive:
“[W]hen the recent decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, coupled with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Texas sodomy case, thrust into the realm of reality the prospect that all states might be called on to recognize homosexual civil unions, the neocons had their scripts rehearsed and ready. Scarcely a day has since gone by that one or another of them has not resonated to the drumbeat of doom for the Republicans, should Bush support any measure that might impede the glorious diversity of homosexual fidelity.” (Available at http://www.lewrockwell.com/manion/manion47.html )
Then ponder this defense of Senator Santorum:
“The New York Times labels Republican senator Rick Santorum a ‘theocrat’ because he defends a state’s right to criminalize bestiality, bigamy, and homosexual acts.” (Available at http://www.lewrockwell.com/manion/manion34.html )
And that took me only 6 minutes to find.
You’re right, George. There’s no evidence that “Manion himself is hostile to homosexuals.” He’s just making a “prediction” — no animus here!
As John Stossel likes to sign off on ABC, “Give me a break!”
P.S. Will his prediction prove to be as reliable as his prediction in his column “Bush a Goner” at http://www.lewrockwell.com/manion/manion52.html ?)
Do you have a quote of what Dobson actually said? Does anyone?
Because the Times article doesn’t.
The best I could find was the question “Does anybody here know SpongeBob?” and the claim,
“Now, Dr Dobson said, SpongeBob’s creators had enlisted him in a ‘pro-homosexual video’, in which he appeared alongside other children’s television characters. The makers of the video, he said, planned to mail it to thousands of schools this northern spring to promote a ‘tolerance pledge’ that includes tolerance for differences of ‘sexual identity’.”
It sounds like the reporter there didn’t record the remarks or get them down word-for-word.
But if anyone were to find the speech, it would be a hoot to read.
The more I hear the more I become convinced this is fabricated bullshit. Dobson was on Fox tonight and denied making any comments about SpongeBob. I tend to believe him because when I dug down to the bottom of the Falwell/Teletubbie story it became clear to me that Falwell simply hadn’t said or written what was attributed to him.
But shoot this around the blogosphere for a few days and the truth won’t matter, it’ll be hung on Dobson for life because it’s so damn juicy.
The only citations of the remark that I could find all link back to the New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/20/politics/20sponge.html?oref=login&oref=login ) by David D. Kirkpatrick. Either he’s not telling the truth or Dr. Dobson isn’t telling the truth.
I think Kilpatrick is deliberately mischaracterizing the remarks while possibly maintaining technical accuracy. He’s the one who made this about SpongeBob, not Dobson.
The headline “Conservatives Pick Soft Target: A Cartoon Sponge” and your “Death to Spongebob!” are not really supported by the text of Kilpatick’s article. There is nothing there corroborating any criticism of SpongeBob on Dobson’s part. I do suspect Kilpatrick intended to lead you to that conclusion though. That’s what gives the story legs.
I’m acquainted with a fair number of evangelical Christians. They actually approve of Spongebob, because he’s a fundamentally honest and moral character. That’s what suprised me with the supposed attack by Focus On The Family.
I’ve seen nothing to indicate that Dobson was attacking or disaraging Spongebob, it seems to me that the NYT piece has him explicitly condemning the video and pledge: “bait and switch”. In other words, ‘Here’s this cartoon that y’all know and love, and the creators of it are trying to use it to promote this thing we don’t like.’
As past events have proved, the New York Times won’t lose any readership by lying. Contrariwise, they’ll gain lotsa kudos from their core audience by attacking those mean ol’ Christian fundamentalists. If Dobson’s telling bald-faced lies, his base will desert him in about a millisecond. The NYT has plenty of incentive to lie, and Dobson has exactly none.
I dunno how much of Dobson’s base would desert him, but yeah, getting caught in an obvious lie would hurt him. And I think the NYT article is constructed to give the Times deniability. It doesn’t actually say Dobson criticized SpongeBob, it just leaves most people with the strong impression it did say so.
From Family.org:
“From the outset, let’s be clear that this issue is not about objections to any specific cartoon characters. Instead, Dr. Dobson is concerned that these popular animated personalities are being exploited by an organization that’s determined to promote the acceptance of homosexuality among our nation’s youth.”
Cite:
http://family.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/family.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=17669
Hmmmmm…..then it does sound like Dr. Dobson did mention SpongeBob and homosexuality together, but may not have been so crazy as to claim (as the New York Times article certainly implied) that he thought that “there’s something about SpongeBob” that should cause right-thinking parents to be worried. If so, that would make him less kooky than if he actually implied that a cartoon character had a sexuality that he found offensive. It sounds like the Times reporter was reading more into the story than was merited by Dr. Dobson’s remarks. I conclude that Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Lopez have done us a service by looking into the matter more deeply. (Nonetheless, I still think that Dr. Dobson is more than a bit wacko, if for no other reason than the newsletters on the proper spanking of children he used to send me, despite my never having indicated any interest in the topic. And his concern about homosexuality as a threat to the family [in contrast to, say, divorce] seems to border on hysteria.)