The cancer in the Regressive party is metastasizing. The religious right claim to own the party and now are using their political capital to obstruct Bush's Social Security privatization plans. It's a beautiful thing...

From today's NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/25/politics/25marriage.html. Membership required, so below is the entire article:

A coalition of major conservative Christian groups is threatening to withhold support for President Bush's plans to remake Social Security unless Mr. Bush vigorously champions a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

The move came as Senate Republicans vowed on Monday to reintroduce the proposed amendment, which failed in the Senate last year by a substantial margin. Party leaders, who left it off their list of priorities for the legislative year, said they had no immediate plans to bring it to the floor because they still lacked the votes for passage.

But the coalition that wrote the letter, known as the Arlington Group, is increasingly impatient.

In a confidential letter to Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political adviser, the group said it was disappointed with the White House's decision to put Social Security and other economic issues ahead of its paramount interest: opposition to same-sex marriage.

The letter, dated Jan. 18, pointed out that many social conservatives who voted for Mr. Bush because of his stance on social issues lack equivalent enthusiasm for changing the retirement system or other tax issues. And to pass to pass any sweeping changes, members of the group argue, Mr. Bush will need the support of every element of his coalition.

"We couldn't help but notice the contrast between how the president is approaching the difficult issue of Social Security privatization where the public is deeply divided and the marriage issue where public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side," the letter said. "Is he prepared to spend significant political capital on privatization but reluctant to devote the same energy to preserving traditional marriage? If so it would create outrage with countless voters who stood with him just a few weeks ago, including an unprecedented number of African-Americans, Latinos and Catholics who broke with tradition and supported the president solely because of this issue."

The letter continued, "When the administration adopts a defeatist attitude on an issue that is at the top of our agenda, it becomes impossible for us to unite our movement on an issue such as Social Security privatization where there are already deep misgivings."

The letter also expressed alarm at recent comments President Bush made to The Washington Post, including his statement that "nothing will happen" on the marriage amendment for now because many senators did not see the need for it.

"We trust that you can imagine our deep disappointment at the defeatist position President Bush demonstrated" in the interview, the group wrote. "He even declined to answer a simple question about whether he would use his bully pulpit to overcome this Senate foot-dragging."

The letter also noted that in an interview before the election Mr. Bush "appeared to endorse civil unions" for same-sex couples.

The group asked Mr. Rove to designate "a top level" official to coordinate opposition to same-sex marriage, as a show of commitment.

Trent Duffy, a spokesman for the White House, said on Monday that "the president was simply talking about a situation that exists in the Senate, not about his personal commitment or his willingness to continue to push this issue." Mr. Duffy said the "president remains very committed to a marriage amendment" and added, "We always welcome suggestions from our friends."

Some Senate Republican leaders were not optimistic on Monday about the amendment's prospects this year.

"I think if we had the vote right now we'd come up short," said Senator Rick Santorum, the Pennsylvania Republican who is a member of the leadership and one of the amendment's most vocal backers in Congress. "We'd like to bring it up when we have the best possible chance of getting it passed."

The members of the coalition that wrote the letter are some of Mr. Bush's most influential conservative Christian supporters, and include Dr. James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, the Southern Baptist Convention, the American Family Association, Jerry Falwell and Paul Weyrich.

Several members of the group said that not long ago, many of their supporters were working or middle class, members of families that felt more allegiance to the Democratic Party because of programs like Social Security before gravitating to the Republican Party as it took up more cultural conservative issues over the last 20 years.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, declined to talk about the letter, but said, "The enthusiasm to get behind his proposals is going to require that he get behind the issues that really motivated social conservative voters."

Asked to estimate the level of discontent with the White House among the group on a scale from one to 10, Mr. Perkins put it at 8.

Here's a way to shut this guy up. Make him give up his tax exempt status.

From Salon

Focus on the funding

Last week the United Church of Christ made a good-humored effort to show anti-SpongeBob crusader James C. Dobson the error of his ways. It was Jesus' way, UCC head Rev. John H. Thomas reminded us, to welcome all beings into the community, even happy little cartoon characters who stand for diversity and tolerance.

This week Colorado Springs watchdog group Citizens Project is wondering if Dobson doesn't also need a little refresher on tax law as it pertains to nonprofit organizations like Dobson's own Focus on the Family. Citizens Group believes Dobson may have violated the law by openly supporting President Bush during the 2004 presidential campaign. According to the Associated Press, the group has asked the Internal Revenue Service to look into the matter:

"In a letter Tuesday to the IRS, Citizens Project complained about a November article in a magazine printed by Focus comparing presidential candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry and their positions on abortion, stem-cell research and same-sex marriage.

"'You're pro-life, and you want to preserve the traditional definition of marriage for the next generation,' the article stated. 'So which of the presidential candidates comes closest to sharing your values?'"

Organizations that operate under nonprofit tax-exemption status, including Focus on the Family, are forbidden by law to endorse political candidates or parties.

"Our organization believes that this article may have violated federal tax law with its use of code words such as 'pro-life' and with its implied support of President George W. Bush as a candidate for president," said Ellie Collinson, the executive director for Citizens Project.

According to the AP, Focus officials responded that the article was written under the umbrella of its lobbying arm, Focus on the Family Action, an organization operating under a different set of tax criteria, and whose money can be used for lobbying.

That assertion of arms-length legality sounds about as convincing as the theory that Jesus himself was anti-tax.

Meanwhile, Dobson is defending his campaign against SpongeBob's latest star turn in an educational video.

"If you had told me a month ago that I’d be devoting my February letter to a cartoon character named SpongeBob SquarePants, I’d have said you were crazy," Dobson wrote in a Focus newsletter. He went on to clarify the "complicated" problem:

"The video, which millions of children will soon see, features nearly 100 favorite cartoon characters that kids will instantly recognize, including not only SpongeBob, but also Barney the Dinosaur, the Muppets, Dora the Explorer, Bob the Builder, Winnie the Pooh, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Jimmy Neutron and Big Bird. The video itself is innocent enough and does not mention anything overtly sexual. Rather, it features the children’s cartoon characters singing and dancing along to the popular disco hit 'We Are Family.'

"But while the video is harmless on its own, I believe the agenda behind it is sinister. My brief comments at the FRC gathering were intended to express concern not about SpongeBob or Big Bird or any of their other cartoon friends, but about the way in which those childhood symbols are apparently being hijacked to promote an agenda that involves teaching homosexual propaganda to children."

-- Mark Follman

Cut From the Oscars: Cartoon Characters' Sins
By DAVID M. HALBFINGER

Published: February 27, 2005

LOS ANGELES, Feb. 26 - ABC executives have forced Robin Williams to drop a comic song from the Oscars show that might well have proved one of the most political and racy numbers of the broadcast, despite the fact that the network and the show's host, Chris Rock, have been promoting the night as anything but tame.

Mr. Williams, the presenter of the Academy Award for best animated feature, decided last week that his one minute on stage would be a prime time to lampoon the conservative critic James C. Dobson, whose group Focus on the Family last month criticized the cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants for appearing in a video about tolerance that the group called "pro-homosexual."

snip

The producer of the Oscars telecast, Gil Cates, urged Mr. Shaiman to make the bit "less political," Mr. Shaiman said, so he quickly removed any reference to Mr. Dobson's protests - and turned Mr. Williams into a fabulous, lisping character dishing up the latest juicy gossip:

nytimes

They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.