Pajamas Media

The Success of AFA’s Ford Boycott Is a Disney-esque Fairy Tale

The AFA boycott didn't cause Ford's problems, writes B. Daniel Blatt of Gay Patriot -- a poor business plan did. For evidence, consider Disney's profits despite a similar boycott.

February 1, 2008 - by B. Daniel Blatt

Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers

In his piece on Monday, Todd Blumer suggests that the American Family Association’s (AFA) boycott of Ford Motor Company for its policy of “giving money to gay rights groups, offering benefits to same-sex couples and actively recruiting gay employees” has led to that American automaker’s downfall and possible future bankruptcy.

Blumer paints a grim pictue of Ford’s financial outlook by noting its declining sales. He finds that the “dropoffs at Ford are far worse than those seen during the same time period at the company’s Metro Detroit counterparts at General Motors and Chrysler.” Indeed, his circumstantial evidence is pretty strong. The AFA announced the boycott in May 2005, and the company’s sales have pretty much been tumbling ever since.

In 2005, Ford enjoyed a modest profit. The following year, the company would suffer a loss of over $12 billion.

To attribute Ford’s decline entirely to the AFA boycott would require one to ignore other problems impacting the automaker over the past few years. To be sure, that boycott may well have played a part in Ford’s financial freefall, but it was far from the primary factor.

More than anything else, the company can attribute its decline to the leadership of former CEO, William Clay Ford, Jr., who seemed to have been hired more because of his pedigree (he’s a great-grandson of Henry Ford) than his management expertise. While he stepped down in September 2006, Ford still serves as executive chairman of the Ford’s Board of Directors.

As chief executive, Ford did not inspire much confidence and remained “reluctant to break from tradition.” As the market shifted, he failed to adjust company policies accordingly.

A committed environmentalist, Ford attempted to improve the fuel efficiency of his company’s fleet, only to find his goals impossible to achieve. Ford continued to produce a large number of gas-guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks. With the price of gas rising significantly in the past few years, demand for such vehicles began to drop sharply.

In order to reverse its decline, Ford brought in a new chief executive from Boeing, Alan R. Mulally.

Shortly after replacing Bill Ford, Alan R. Mulally jetted off to Japan “to meet with top executives of its toughest competitor, Toyota, to seek their advice on ways to streamline Ford’s manufacturing operations.” Trained as an engineer, Mulally led the turnaround of Boeing’s commercial airplane division. This businessman understood that the problem at Ford had more to do with the company’s overall operations than its policies on gays.

Attributing Ford’s fall to AFA’s boycott not only ignores the automaker’s failure to respond to changes in the marketplace, it also ignores the record of past AFA boycotts. In 2005, it ended its boycott against the Walt Disney Corporation, with president Tim Wildmon claiming that the organization had made its point.

Perhaps it had made its point, but it didn’t make much of a difference. Despite the nine-year boycott, the company, which markets primarily to families with young children, did not drop its pioneering domestic partnership program (for same-sex couples) and continued to welcome “Gay Days” at its amusement parks. (For the record, yours truly is a huge Disney fan and a proud Disney stockholder.)

In short, the AFA’s boycott did not effect Disney’s bottom line. Families flocked to Disney parks; parents took their kids to see Disney movies and bought DVDs for their homes.

The Disney example supports the the argument that Ford’s fall has less to do with the boycott than it does with market conditions and managment intransigence. Interestingly, the AFA launched its Ford boycott at about the same time it dropped its campaign against Disney. Maybe its leadership was aware of Bill Ford’s failure to fix his family’s company, and they assumed they could attribute the company’s decline to their boycott.

Should Mulally succeed in turning around Ford, expect the AFA to drop their boycott and claim they made their point — even if Ford continues to offer domestic partnership benefits.

In a free market, socially conservative organizations like the American Family Association are free to lead boycotts against companies like Ford, Disney, or, for that matter, any corporation which violates (or appears to violate) their values. By the same token, gay organizations can launch boycotts against corporations which have adopted anti-gay policies — or refuse to implement pro-gay ones.

That doesn’t mean they’ll be effective. But the free market allows them to use boycotts to attempt to influence corporate policies.

Consumers weigh a variety of factors when purchasing a product. They consider its cost, its quality and even the company’s policies. While those policies may have little to do with the product’s quality, that doesn’t diminish the right of the consumer to act in a matter which some might deem irrational.

And while those boycotts may indeed hurt the corporations, their record has been spotty. Disney continues to do well, despite (or perhaps, because of) its domestic partnership program. Ford’s current woes have less to do with the AFA than with its immediate past CEO, a man either unwilling or unable to bring his family’s business into the twenty-first century.

Let the AFA attribute the decline of Ford to its drawing attention to the company’s pro-gay policies. But other corporations have adopted similar policies and not suffered like the American automaker. The AFA may claim that it hasn’t targeted them, but I would wager that if it had, it wouldn’t have made much of a difference. Americans are more concerned about a product’s quality than they are about the domestic partnership policies of the corporations than produce it.

Realizing this, expect the AFA to drop its boycott against Ford as it did the campaign against Disney. It will probably claim that it made a point, but it really won’t have made much of a difference.

B. Daniel Blatt, a writer based in Los Angeles, is completing his Ph.D. in Mythological Studies and blogs as GayPatriot West at GayPatriot.

34 Comments

David Thomson:

William Clay Ford, Jr. is your quintessential inheritor of great wealth who wants to prove that he is member of the “elites.” Joseph Schumpeter long ago warned about such immature people. They often become anti-capitalists like Friedrich Engels who funded Karl Marx while the Ford family presently funds the ultra-leftist Ford Foundation. Anyone who embraces such so-called advanced views is likely to severely damage the corporation entrusted to them.

Feb 1, 2008 - 6:26 am Brent:

I don’t know how much of an affect the boycott is having. It certainly hasn’t helped and may have been the straw on the camel’s back. Personally, I am a third generation Ford driver. I sold my fords last year and bought a chevy.

Feb 1, 2008 - 8:24 am Tony:

I own 2 fords .I am going for a chevy next time!!!If ford back gays Im no longer a ford man..

Feb 1, 2008 - 10:00 am Sharon Tomas:

So,Mr. Blatt thinks that AFA’s Ford Motor Co. boycott wasn’t and isn’t effective. Then why are my husband and I not buying Ford products anymore?

I am not even a member of AFA but I signed the boycott petition. I am not a radical conservative who cringes if I hear an occasional “hell” or “damn” on a program or movie. Now the F-word deeply offends me, especially when used as it was by ESPN’s Jacobson recently. I do detest tatoos and multiple bodypiercings, especially those that are on the parts of the anatomy visible in street clothes. I don’t care if Ford offers same-sex domestic partner benefits. That is their business. It is the stubborn support and sponsorship of the homosexual lifestyle that has led me to swear off Ford products. boycott.

Just about every vehicle my family owned as I was growing up was a Ford. And my husband and I have owned many Ford products through the years. We still purchase Ford 1-ton crew trucks for our oilfield construction business.

However, we do not have a Ford product under our personal carport.

I would probably have already replaced my Suburban with a Ford Expedition except for the boycott.

Recently, I have decided that I would like to downsize a bit. I still won’t even look at what a Ford dealership might have to offer.

Ford’s financial incompetence has certainly contributed to their losses in sales and income. But the financial management decisions did not impact my decision to boycott Ford products. And there are many more ex-customers just like me - enough to have made a large dent in Ford’s bottom line even without their financial gaffes.

Thanks for letting me tell my side of the story.

Feb 1, 2008 - 10:02 am John:

Can Ford Motor afford to alienate ANY potential customers? I can tell you that this company has alientated people, because FoMoCo ignores how the majority of Americans, and indeed, how most States in the Union, consider issues such as gay marriage. Rather than taking a neutral stance in the “culture wars”, Ford has decided to make a strong (albeit offensive) statement in it’s endorsement of the homosexual agenda. Prediction: the consequences will prove to be equally strong. WalMart backed away from taking a position of support of the gay agenda, and as such, has preserved it’s customer support. Ford Motor can yet do the same, and claim a neutral position. If it does not, it will wither on the proverbial vine.

I am a past southeast Michigan native with relatives who today still work in the automobile industry. I am a past employee of Ford Motor. I was weaned on the message of “buy American” and “support American auto makers”. Because of the arrogant position taken by Ford Motor on this issue, and because of its willingness to weaken the meaning of the traditional, mother-father American family, I am perfectly willing to let Ford Motor drown in the cesspool of its own choosing. After all, I can still choose GM and Chrysler and feel like I am supporting American-made autos. Is the AFA boycott working? Well, at least for my family, and for many folks that we know, it certainly is!

Feb 1, 2008 - 10:48 am Austin:

As Americans we have the implicit right to Freedom of Speech given to us under the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately this protects extremists and bigots like the AFA, giving them the right to try to force their narrow beliefs or “values” on other people. Don’t get me wrong, freedom of speech is one of many freedoms that I and we as Americans enjoy and because of that we have to listen to zealots, and fanatics. Ignoring them is the best way to cope. - Waco , Texas

Feb 1, 2008 - 11:33 am Chuck:

Ford is suffering from many reasons. Let’s be factual, AFA has done it job and so have many of the Ford executives! Both have greatly affected a grand old company.

As stated by many, Ford can support whatever lifestyle they wish. Others can choose to tell Ford that they will not buy their products! Free market is a free market. Ford can also allow “fools” to run their company into the ground both by the cars they design and sell and by their choices on social issues!!

AFA is not the “big” culprit here, but they have affected Ford. Ford may choose to ignore that fact; it is their choice and the loss of some money because of that choice.

Feb 1, 2008 - 11:50 am DixieKraut:

I have personally seen to it that several people and my company replace their Fords with other products. as for the comparison, it’s one thing to tell your kid you are not going to own Fords anymore and entirely another to tell him he cannot go to to Disney. My daughter is one of those who now drives GM and took her two boys to Disney this past year. Many who support the Ford boycott do see Disney’s actions being as overt as Ford’s

Feb 1, 2008 - 12:08 pm Gregg:

I heard about the boycott from AFA and signed the petition. I and several family members and many friends have purposely not bought a Ford vehicle when we were buying. You may question the effectiveness of the boycott but these small numbers of non-Ford purchases adds up rapidly with only a few thousand similar cases to mine.

I would like the Ford executives to reconsider their position. I have a 1996 Ford conversion van and a 1967 Mustang but our newer vehicles are not Ford products.

Feb 1, 2008 - 12:28 pm mishu:

Oh here they come again. Ugh. The facts are ALL MAJOR AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS OFFER SAME SEX BENEFITS! Where are you going to buy your next car? Iran?

Feb 1, 2008 - 12:47 pm Bridget:

I think Dan Blatt makes many excellent points. I won’t buy any more Fords (and previously had two) because the quality is so low; I last bought a German car, and the craftsmanship and performance blow Ford away. I couldn’t care less what companies do or don’t offer their gay employees. I do care, though, if they’re producing a substandard product.

Feb 1, 2008 - 1:03 pm newton:

As a Christian, I am very sure that very few boycotts are effective and actually do the intended damage. And the few that actually do, are actually historic. Look at the Montgomery Bus boycott from of the time of the Civil Rights Movement. It was probably the one that was absolutely effective in its purpose.

I am very conscious of the fact that, since this is an imperfect world, no product offered in the marketplace is “free of sin”. So, I’m not in the mood to cast stones, so to speak.

How many will get rid of their iPods and Macs the moment they find out that Al Gore is in the Board of Directors of Apple? How many will give up their Starbucks addiction for x or y reason coming out of Seattle? How many people will get rid of their Toshiba, HP, etc. for the same reasons?

The fact of the matter is that Ford is selling a crappy product and people aren’t buying. Period.

Or do we Christians have to end up living in caves and doing everything a la twenty-first century… B.C.E.? I don’t see us doing so any time soon.

Feb 1, 2008 - 1:26 pm Julia:

Austin wrote:

“As Americans we have the implicit right to Freedom of Speech given to us under the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately this protects extremists and bigots like the AFA, giving them the right to try to force their narrow beliefs or ‘values’ on other people.”

As a participant in the AFA boycott, I resent being referred to as a bigot or extremist, of which I am neither. I find it interesting that when two people have a disagreement on an issue of morality, one is inevitable referred to as narrow-minded and bigotted, merely for disagreeing with the other. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that you suffer from the same close mindedness that you accuse others of. Clearly, you support the Ford decision to market to homosexual groups, and disagree with those who would oppose it. While I may not agree with your choice, I understand that you have arrived at it through a process of weighing values and beliefs you hold.

I understand that you believe your opinions are right, the same way I, and others, believe in mine. We are both convinced that our opposing viewpoints are correct. So, which one of us does that make into a bigot? We’ve reached a stalemate: You disagree with me, and I disagree with you. If disagreement is the criteria by which you have determined me to be a bigot, by what standard do you judge yourself?

Feb 1, 2008 - 1:55 pm Julia:

One more thing: I understand that almost every large corporation offers same sex benefits to its employees. That is not my problem with Ford.

I refuse to buy a Ford because of their offensive advertisements and marketing schemes to attract the gay market. I do not appreciate that sort of content being on display, and I will not support it. I appreciate the fact that the AFA has alerted me to it and given me the opportunity to oppose Ford’s policies with my dollars.

Feb 1, 2008 - 2:00 pm Robert:

Brent and Tony, the Big Men that they are, ain’t gonna buy no Fords no more.

Guess what, guys, GM and Chrysler (and most of the Fotune 100), and just about all defense contractors for that matter, offer DP benefits.

If the culture is a wreck (and it is) then the 97% of the population that’s straight needs to take a long look in the mirror.

Nearly half the kids born today are born to single mothers; kids keep Day-Timers to remember which parent they’re staying with this weekend; 14-year-old girls are being stabbed by “boys” in middle school (happened in the last day or so).

Ford provides benefits to its gay employees for business reasons: they need to attract and retain good employers… the same reason they offer benefits to straight workers. If they could get the workers they need with no benefits, they’d do it in a heartbeat.

Gays are simply scapegoats: when people make a mess of things, they naturally look to blame others. It’s the American Way now - none of us are responsible; it’s always someone else’s fault.

I never thought I’d see the day when “conservatives” would blame their woes on society - just like whiny libs.

Feb 1, 2008 - 4:11 pm mishu:

What are you doing looking at gay media?

Seriously, you are entitled to your beliefs but gay people are a very affluent demographic. For the most part, they have lower personal expenses since they rarely have children. Therefore they are more able to buy things. I find it hard to believe that Ford is the only car company advertising to gay people. The choice to boycott Ford as opposed to the others seems so random. The AFA member who was leafing through gay magazines could have easily flipped to a page that had a Honda ad.

Feb 1, 2008 - 6:19 pm vortex:

Yes, I’d like to know just what these “offensive advertisements” consist of. Not having seen one, I’d assume they’re along the lines of two men or women riding in a car together, looking happy. Or maybe even (those of you with sensitive dispositions may wish to avert your eyes) holding hands.

Call me obtuse, but I don’t see what all the fuss about. What I do see is an essential difference between gay and anti-gay activists. By and large, gay activists don’t believe everyone in society should be like them. There are no vast, organized networks of “ex-straight” groups dedicated to using the power of faith (in Barbra and Cher, perhaps) to convert hesitant heterosexuals to a lifetime of gay abandon.

The only coercion I can see is among those who use their faith as a bludgeon to force others to observe their codes of behavior.

Feb 1, 2008 - 7:23 pm Jack:

I am a dyed-in-the-wool Ford fan. I love their products, forgive their mistakes (like the unwise change of the design of the Taurus), and I drive Fords. My large family of siblings drives Fords, including brothers, sisters, parents, and my personal family, with many kids in college and on both sides of college. Trucks, vans, sedans, mercury products, the lot, we have driven them since 1965. BUT NO MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I made a decision almost two years ago when I first learned of the boycott. I have been very vocal about it with my family, telling them not to buy Fords, and why. I actually waited for Ford to drop their offensive advertising. Finally, I could not wait any longer. In December 2007, I had to buy a car, and it had to be something other than a Ford.

Now, I must buy another vehicle in the next month or two (the youngest college kid was hit by an unlicensed driver in January 2008, so that car is toast). Unless Ford changes, I will go to Chrysler or foreign from now on, forever.

It was really hard this last time I bought a car. I wanted to go see my Ford dealer to look at vehicles. I went, but not to look. I walked into the manager’s office and told him about the boycott. I told him to call Ford and get them to change their position, so I could buy another vehicle, and probably two.

Now that I have made the break, it will be easy to stay away until Ford comes back to me. You abuse my confidence; you lose my business. You have great engineering, foolish management, and absolutely offensive executives who support homosexual lifestyles. Ford obviously does not need my money. Fine. I do not need them to destroy the society I live in. They shall not have my money to support causes that destroy this civilization.

Feb 1, 2008 - 11:14 pm Jack:

Whether the boycott is effective against Ford is not really the point. It needs to stay. Companies like Ford are created to provide a product for the public, profits for owners, and jobs for employees. When they are misguided into social causes, political causes, or moral disputes, they are crusading for something completely unrelated to any of those three functions. They will just have to take the consequences of alienating a large and growing number of potential customers aware of, and offended by, their detour. Let the boycott stay as long as it takes. We’ll not be living in caves.

Incidentally, I have gay friends. I treat them with respect. Likewise, gay strangers. I work with gay professionals in my work. I still disagree with their choice on the gay issue. I feel no animosity toward them.

I do feel that I have the right to withdraw my financial support when a company seeks to promote or actively support what I consider a grave, deplorable, mistake, with respect to an issue of moral principle. I feel strongly enough about it, that I am willing to change long habits and decisions of 40 years standing.

Feb 1, 2008 - 11:39 pm Elaine Chaney:

I come from a large family and many of them have driven Fords in the past. I signed the petition to boycott Ford 1 year ago and am letting everybody know about it. I don’t see anyone I know buying Fords any more. The Ford Company needs to get the message that we want them to promote family values, not their own agenda. The customers are supposed to matter the most…since when has that changed?

Feb 2, 2008 - 9:42 am Maria Thomas:

I signed the petition last year and have informed my family and friends. I will not be buying a Ford now or in the future. They lost this customer.

Feb 2, 2008 - 4:46 pm Julia:

As I stated in my earlier posting, I am thankful that AFA has alerted me concerning the content of Ford’s advertisements in gay media. Had they not sent the following information to me, I would not be aware of the reality of Ford’s advertisments.

http://www.afa.net/emails/transform.asp?x=ford_120307&s=browser&y=2007&m=11

http://www.afa.net/aa012307.asp

http://www.afa.net/ford052506.asp

http://www.afa.net/ford0323.asp

I understand targeted marketing and using advertisements to appeal to groups you are targeting. However, the content of the ads that AFA has highlighted would be offensive even if they featured heterosexual couples. They are very explicit, and while I do not read the publications they appear in, just knowing that Ford is running them is enough for me to participate in a boycott.

I simply do not believe that Ford should be taking sides in issues of morality. As I said, offering same sex benefits is one thing, but engaging in aggressive advocacy and lobbying in Washington, as well as offensive marketing is taking the issue too far. It’s a car company, not a cultural advocacy group.

We’ll see how it plays out in the market. If Ford’s marketing strategy is as effective as they’re betting on it to be, then they should have no problems resulting from the boycott.

Feb 2, 2008 - 6:12 pm Bradley:

I am a born-again Christian and “opposed” to homosexuality. To be more specific, I believe “being” gay is sinful. I believe it is a genetic characteristic relevant to the original sin all are born with. I believe being born with homosexual characteristics is systemically no different than being born with alcoholic tendencies or that which I was born with, a highly addictive personality which, ultimately, led to me being thrown into drug rehab as a 17 yr old. Some are born with very serious, deadly tendencies while others are born with much more harmless ones. Overcoming these tendencies almost always leads to greater peace, a closer relationship with God and even salvation!

Homosexuality is a sinful genetic tendency one should seek to overcome just as those with alcoholic tendencies do. If everyone were to make their specific “genetic sins” socially legitimate we’d likely have no society at all and be left with Mad Max style anarchy. Further, forcing others to accept your point of view or to agree with you that your sin isn’t really sin does not give one contentment or happiness but rather results in the emptiness which was there all along and can only be filled with the blood of Jesus Christ.

So, to the homosexual, please meditate quietly while seeking true peace and love. I believe if you do so honestly you will find Christ. To the Christian who seeks to boycott, jail and ultimately rid the country of homosexual persons, stop and ask yourselves, does this give you peace and does the homosexual see Christ in you?

Please, as Christians who know the love, peace and awesome love of Christ, you have the greater responsibility to put your arm around your enemy, show him/her the love of Christ. Let them see Christ in you and if they are not interested in learning about him then dust off your feet and move on to someone who does want to learn and be saved.

Kindest Regards,

Bradley

Feb 2, 2008 - 7:08 pm Aaron:

Well spoken Bradley. I do not wish to see homosexuals “jailed” or “removed from the country” however I do believe we are Christians first and Americans second…I agree with you about showing love to all sinners and let them make up their own minds and hearts about our Lord and Savior. As an American, I would request all who claim citizenship to STAND UP for what they believe and bring about change the way our constitution lays forth- PEACEFULLY. Nobody has the right to bash a fellow countrymen for choosing where to or not to…purchase his vehicle. Noone has the right to bash one group of people who choose to not participate in the activities of another group! Homosexuals have no right to bash Christians or any other group who chooses not to participate in their lifestlye, and tells others why they make that choice. It seems to me that while they preach open-mindedness…where is the openmindedness that they should be giving Christians? Don’t call someone a bigot until you can not be labeled one yourself. The only way, my fellow Christians, for us to reach others for Christ is to have caring interaction/relationships with those we wish to reach. That means show the LOVE of Christ and BE A FRIEND.

Feb 2, 2008 - 9:55 pm Zach Foreman:

I disagree. Just because the AFA boycott didn’t have a measurable effect on Disney doesn’t mean that it isn’t having one on Ford. The analogy fails because there are plenty of good alternatives to buying a Ford, such as buying a Chevy or Toyota. But it is less clear that there is a satisfying, painless equivalent for Disney (either Disneyland/World or Disney movies or merchandise).
Also, there are far fewer buying moments to influence in the Ford boycott than the Disney boycott. An average person only buys perhaps 10 new cars in a lifetime but there are many more opportunities to go to a Disney attraction, buy a Disney product or see a Disney movie or dvd (or turn to the Disney channel).

Feb 2, 2008 - 10:38 pm John St. Onge:

The problem with Dr. Blatt’s argument is that it’s based on a false implication about what Todd Blummer wrote. Blummer did not say that the AFA boycott is the only factor or even that it is a “primary factor.” He said it has been A factor that has contributed a “substantial portion.”

Feb 3, 2008 - 5:44 am Hugh:

Nah, the boycott doesn’t matter to Ford.
Shoot what’s a hundred thousand potential customers here or there.
pfffft. no biggie.

That said, here is another Ford buyer who has let his dealer know that he won’t be back.
2 Taurus’, 1 Escort, 1 Galaxy (yeah, i go back a ways), 1 Bronco, 4 F-150’s.
Sorry Ford, bought my wife a Pontiac.
Oh, and she loves it.
And yes i did sign the boycott.

Feb 3, 2008 - 7:19 pm Howard:

Mishu sez: “but gay people are a very affluent demographic. For the most part, they have lower personal expenses since they rarely have children. Therefore they are more able to buy things.” In other words, gays do NOT need special rights laws, they do NOT need special benefits from Big Government or Big Business, and they can pay for treating their own health care problems WITHOUT passing those costs on to all taxpayers and customers. Gays are like Muslims; they pick fights with other people and then get upset when the other people fight back.

Feb 3, 2008 - 8:56 pm Tom Blumer:

Straw man, Daniel.

I said the boycott is a major factor, not THE factor.

You also overlook the fact that the Ford boycott, unlike the Disney one:

- has a broader base of support (almost certainly many more signatories than Disney’s ever had)

- is over the purchase of a big-ticket item as opposed to a bunch of relatively smaller purchases.

- is over buying something — vehicles — where there is a lot of direct competition (Disney competes for entertainment dollars, but their parks, movies, etc. are like no others)

As I stated, I don’t support the boycott. But it’s difficult to believe that there aren’t at least 200,000 - 300,000 vehicle sales being lost per year (and that the annual sales loss is growing). That’s in the neighborhood of a $1.5 billion to $2.2 billion hit to the pretax bottom line. It would only take about 1%-2% of the 12-20 million supporting the boycott not to buy ONE vehicle each year to cause that degree of loss.

Ford is being incredibly irresponsible by pretending they’re not being hurt, and hurt badly.

Feb 4, 2008 - 1:59 pm kelly hart:

Bradley and Aaron, you leave me speechless, you have literally removed the words right out of my mouth!!! If more people would think like this, well honestly this comment page might not be here. Amen and Amen!!!
Oh ya, i signed the petition too, and you know what, i am not worried whether anyone else does or not. i know that i am trying to do the best thing for my family and our rewards in heaven and if it catches a few eyes along the way and they want to come, then i will welcome them with both arms. and if they dont i will not judge them.
God Bless All and your opinions.

Feb 4, 2008 - 2:18 pm Howard:

Daniel Blatt and the responders who claim that the AFA boycott of Disney had no effect are repeating a Goebbels-style Big Lie, or at least a Big Half-Truth. While the boycott was certainly not a complete success (DP benefits and Gay Days are still there), it was a partial success. After the peak success of The Lion King in 1994, and even before the official AFA boycott began, many people began to turn away from Disney movies. Later Disney cartoon features, such as “Politically-correct-ahontas,” “Jerkules,” and “Foolan,” made far less money at the box office. Many people rejected Disney videos in favor of other videos such as Veggietales. Many families did choose alternatives to Disney theme parks. Many people who joined the boycott did not stay away from all Disney products, but were willing to buy a Disney product which had high quality WITHOUT political correctness (e.g. the Toy Story movies). Disney eventually showed the door to its longtime Chief Executive Politically-Correct Bigot, Michael Eisner, and chose a new CEO without Eisner’s gratuitous hatemongering. The new CEO began better projects, including the Chronicles of Narnia movies.

Feb 4, 2008 - 8:02 pm M Lewis:

To compare the effectiveness of the Disney boycott to the Ford boycott is a mistake. Disney products and parks are integrated into the core of American families and as such, I believe parents had a more difficult time denying Disney products to their children. It is not easy to tell little Jonny or Jill that we are not going to see that popular movie because the people running Disney support the “Gay” agenda. “Daddy, what does Gay mean?”. “Well son….”. You get the picture. But when it comes to the next car purchase, little Jonny and Jill don’t much care. “Wow…its a new car, SUV, etc” is their typical response. Parents don’t have to justify why they made a specific purchase. Secondly, multiple decisions to boycott Disney had to be made over time; do we go to this movie, rent that video, visit Disney land, etc. The decision to boycott Ford only has to be made once over a 3 to 5 year time frame. Sorry Ford, your position is not as strong as Disney. You would do well to recognize that. So believe what you will, the Ford boycott is much more effective and consistently followed that the Disney boycott ever was.

Feb 5, 2008 - 11:56 am Howard:

Robert makes valid points when he says that “Nearly half the kids born today are born to single mothers; kids keep Day-Timers to remember which parent they’re staying with this weekend; 14-year-old girls are being stabbed by boys in middle school.” However, Robert failed to mention that the liberals who champion the homosexual agenda are the same liberals who promoted extramarital sex, single motherhood, easy divorce, and self-esteem instead of discipline in public schools.

Feb 5, 2008 - 7:59 pm Michael:

When the AFA announced their Disney boycott, I thought “Give me a break! Disney bends over backwords to provide families with decent entertainment.” For example, their parks are geared toward families. Just compare a Disney park with a Six Flags or some other theme park. The others are all about the thrill rides and are full of teenagers there with their friends - not their families. They know their market. Disney parks, on the other hand, are full of families. The rides may not be quite as fun or thrilling, but the atmosphere is worlds different. Similarly, their animated features are clean and wholesome. They are aimed at smaller children, but usually include humoric elements that appeal to adults as well. The competitors (Shrek, et al) are geared to teenagers and young adults. They contain crude low-brow humor missing from their Disney counterparts. Consequently, even though AFA had issues with some of the things being done by Disney management, most of us felt like the good offered to families by Disney outweighed those decisions, and thereby chose not to join in the boycott. However, in this case I was appalled to see how openly and forwardly Ford was actively promoting and encouraging this “alternative lifestyle.” This isn’t about selling cars to gays, advertising in a magazine, or even offerening domestic partner benefits. This is about being the premiere sponsor of Gay-Pride festivals. The company is going out of their way to take sides in this issue. They’ve clearly decided which side they want to come down on - and it’s not in the middle. Once I learned what they were doing I decided not to buy another Ford. Consequently, when I replaced my Taurus, it was not with a Ford. When I needed a new minivan, I actually test drove a Windstar and really liked it, but I bought a Sienna. When my Contour finally gives up the ghost (which it’s about to do - it’s got a blown head gasket), it’ll be replaced with something other than a Ford. To suggest that this boycott has not had an impact, or to compare it to the Disney boycott is simply ostriching (hiding your head in the sand). You’re welcome to leave your head there as long as you’d like, but you’re not going to gain a very accurate or complete view of the world around you.

Feb 6, 2008 - 2:50 pm