Santorum: the Scouts’ Board of Directors are going to murder scouting
February 4th, 2013
From the man who thought he was going to be president: (World Net Daily – a very appropriate place for Rick Santorum)
Scouting prepares boys and teenagers to be virtuous men in a world that desperately needs men who are brave enough to stand up for those principles, to live by the moral code of the Scout Oath and Law and hold themselves to that standard – whether at the schoolyard or in the boardroom. Scouting may not survive this transformation of American society, but for the sake of the average boy in America, I hope the board of the Scouts doesn’t have its fingerprints on the murder weapon.
The Box of Rocks came out of retirement to note that wacky hyperbole is beneath its dignity.
Box of Rocks on Santorum’s acknowledgment of loss
April 10th, 2012
Some months ago the campaign staff determined that the viability of our candidate’s campaign was non-existent. Rather than linger on in some delusional hope of convincing super-delegates to ignore the vote count or to put faith in Rush Limbaugh’s pointless assertions about it not being over until 1,144 delegates were committed, our candidate ceased campaigning.
Former Senator Rick Santorum is clearly dumber than our candidate.
However the Box of Rocks congratulates Sen. Santorum on his belated epiphany and praises his decision to stop making a fool of himself in public.
And noting that Sen. Santorum seems to have no skills that would serve him well in the private sector, the Box of Rocks wishes him the very best of luck and offers the following advice: although it may seem that the next logical step is to take the helm of an SPLC listed hate group, the Rocks advise against this move. In the long run, obscurity is preferable to infamy.
Santorum wins in Iowa!! (kinda)
January 19th, 2012
“Wasn’t that weeks ago?” you may be wondering. “And didn’t Romney win by 8 votes?”
Mitt Romney 30,015
Rick Santorum 30,007
Well, that was with 100% of the precincts counted. But now that the Iowa Republican Party leadership has officially “lost” eight precincts, the official winner is Rick Santorum:
Rick Santorum 29,839
Mitt Romney 29,805
No, I’m not making this up. In a scenario that could only be dreamed up by Dodgson, the leadership of the Republican Party in the great state of Iowa have “officially” declared Santorum to have received more votes than Romney in their (meaningless) caucus tally. (WaPo)
“It’s done,” said a party spokesman, who asked that his name not be used. About the missing votes, he said: “We never got ‘em. We tried to track ‘em down, and for whatever reason, we don’t have them.”
Romney graciously chose not to debate the validity of a tally based on “lost” ballots, saying, “The results from Iowa caucus night revealed a virtual tie . . .We once again recognize Rick Santorum for his strong performance in the state.”
But in characteristic manner, Rick Santorum gloated.
This latest defeat of Governor Romney in Iowa is just the beginning, and Rick Santorum is committed to continuing the fight as the clear, consistent conservative voice in this race.
I’m guessing that Rick Santorum actually believes that when they lose your opponents votes, it means that you’ve “defeated” him. The Box of Rocks, which has been enjoying some quiet time with its family, said through a spokesman, “I really pity that man. He is dumber than… well… it’s hard to come up with a comparison.”
Santorum affirms all relationship, Box of Rocks is disgusted
January 16th, 2012
When a mother asked what to tell her son, Mrs. Santorum told her to blame her son. (Examiner)
Karen Santorum, Rick’s wife, answered first. “I think it’s very sad what the gay activists have done out there; they vilify him, and it’s so wrong,” she said. “Rick does not hate anyone.” Mrs. Santorum noted that opponents “can’t even find one example” of her husband hating gay people.
Rick Santorum cast his opposition gay marriage as a “public policy difference,” lamenting that “some see that public policy difference as a personal assault.”
Santorum then chimed in with some fascinating statements:
“There’s all sorts of other relationships that people have, and they are valuable relationships — whether they are amorous relationships or friendship relationships or familial relationships — they’re all important, they all have value they all should be affirmed,” Santorum added. “But that does not mean that we should change the laws to order — to create an atmosphere where children and families are not being promoted.”
The Box of Rocks vehemently disagrees with Rick Santorum on this issue. The Rocks do NOT think all relationships have value or should be affirmed.
For example, the Box of Rocks will never affirm ‘man on child’ relationships, which Santorum is on record as equating to same-sex relationships. The spokesman for the Box of Rocks noted, “That Rick Santorum is a pretty sick puppy. And I don’t mean in the ‘man on dog’ way.”
Maggie Gallagher endorses Rick Santorum
January 16th, 2012
National Organization for [Catholic] Marriage’s Maggie Gallagher has endorse Pope Rick, as was anticipated. In doing so, she had far less to say about his policies or qualifications than she did about the meanies who are mocking the candidate:
They will go after him not just to defeat Rick Santorum, but to smear his good name, to associate it with their own muck, to take a decent and honorable man and try literally to make his name mean mud.
Oh, Maggie, no one is trying to literally make his name mean mud! Even a box of rocks knows that.
The box of rocks is very familiar with mud and considers mud to be a good friend. But it tries to keep a garden hose handy if there is any chance of coming in contact with santorum.
Box of Rocks on Pope Rick
January 15th, 2012
In response to the ecclesiastical selection of Rick Santorum as the exalted one, the boxs of rocks didn’t have much to say. However a spokesman noted that the Box of Rocks has little support from the theocratic minded as it generally tries to avoid those who are likely to cast the first stone.
Rocking the sweater vest
January 13th, 2012
Noting that sweater vests are the source of Rick Santorum’s power, the box of rocks thought it would try out the fashion article.
General consensus: the box didn’t seem any more intelligent, and the sweater vest made the rocks look fat.
Another good day for the box of rocks, not so great for Santorum
January 12th, 2012
This year Ohio Republicans changed the method by which delegates to the national nominating convention are selected. Rather than “winner takes all”, each of 16 congressional district will send three delegates based on the winner of that district. An additional 18 delegates are selected proportionately from the statewide vote (provided that the candidate gets at least 20 percent of the vote) for a total of 66 delegates.
That’s more than can be counted on your fingers and toes, and it seems that Rick Santorum got a bit confused. (Politico)
All six major GOP candidates have been certified and will appear on the Ohio ballot, according to a list released by the Ohio secretary of state’s office today. But Rick Santorum, the release said, did not file delegates in the 6th, 9th or 13th congressional districts — and loses his chance at getting any delegates in those districts.
When asked about the issue, the bocks of rocks opted not to comment.
Santorum challenges box of rocks for the imbecile vote
January 11th, 2012
Chafing at the Box of Rocks’ showing in New Hampshire, Rick Santorum was quick today to prove that he – not a box of rocks – is the truly stupid candidate this year. (WSJ)
In South Carolina, Mr. Santorum plans to hit Mr. Romney on issues like championing “Romneycare,” the health-care law he advocated and signed as governor of Massachusetts and “signing marriage licenses for homosexual couples,” said Mr. Gidley [Santorum's national spokesman].
The Box of Rocks’ national spokesman marveled at that comment, noting that governors don’t sign marriage licenses.
What New Hampshire Means
January 11th, 2012
As with Iowa, not much in national terms, but for different reasons. It remains to be seen whether New Hampshire or Iowa will stand out as an anomaly. But it may mean something in state politics where there are murmurings that the state legislature may take up a bill repealing that state’s marriage equality law. If state lawmakers looked to these results as an indication of their own electoral futures, they may notice that two of the three top finishers have kept the National Organization for Marriage at arm’s length. Yes, Romney signed and won the primary, but 40% of the the GOP’s own voters backed candidates who didn’t. What’s more, audiences openly booed Santorum’s making Teh Gays a central talking point of his campaign, making that the most visible indication of how Granite Staters feel about anti-gay politics.
Whether that matters in the state legislature or not however isn’t a given. State Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R) seems to understand the temperature of the state electorate, and warned the GOP candidates to avoid discussing the state’s effort to repeal its 2009 marriage equality law, declaring such talk “off message” even though she herself is a staunch opponent of marriage and adoption rights for same-sex couples, having resigned as Attorney General in protest after Governor John Lynch signed the marriage equality bill into law. But social conservatives have an amazing capacity for self-delusions of power and grandeur. Gingrich’s victory speech last night, which didn’t mention Romney’s inconvenient existence, had Gingrich crowning himself the winner of “the conservative primary” as he all but measured the White House’s drapes. And in a related late-breaking development, a box of rocks moved ahead to edge him out of his third place finish. Meanwhile Perry has already saddled up for South Carolina after pulling out an upset victory over the write-in candidates. Santorum is already there as well, where he hopes his Iowa streak will leave a mark.
January 10th, 2012
The results are in for last night’s New Hampshire GOP Primary. There weren’t too many surprises with the final results: Romney, as expected, came in with a strong first place showing. Given that he was governor of neighboring Massachusetts, he was practically a native son in political terms, making his strong showing unsurprising. Also, as expected, Ron Paul came in second. Huntsman was expected to do well in the state, having put all of his eggs in the Granite State basket. He came in third, and it’s not clear where his campaign goes from here.
Gingrich came up short, pulling on only 10% of the vote, as further evidence of his rapidly dropping popularity. A Box of Rocks came on surprisingly strong, ahead of Santorum and Perry. Cowboy Perry barely outpaced the write-ins to finish at the rear, with Santorum settling in just a short distance up it.
And that’s a wrap at BTB Elections Central for New Hampshire. Now it’s on to South Carolina where the fun really begins.
Box of Rocks begins exploratory committee
January 10th, 2012
I just received this. I guess it means the box of rocks is encouraged by comparison to Santorum and is exploring its options.
Box of Rocks coasts on to another day of victory
January 10th, 2012
Today the Box of Rocks sat quietly and was bothered by no one. However, Rick Santorum found himself subjected to chants of “bigot” as he entered a campaign event. Which got me thinking, what does Santorum say on his website about matters of equality (Santorum, not santorum… that’s a different website).
In the section of “What I Believe” titled “Appointing Constitutionalist Justices and Judges Who Refuse to Legislate from the Bench”, he says the following:
Rick Santorum is no stranger to the issue of judges. … in 2004 when activist judges sought to legislate from the bench and redefine marriage, Rick spearheaded the debate in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment.
First, let’s consider whether that makes any sense at all. As of 2004, not a single Federal Judge had found anything favorable about marriage. However, a number of state judges had concluded that state constitutions disallowed discrimination against gay people and had demanded that either marriage or some equivalent be provided so that citizens can have equal access, so these must be the judges he’s talking about.
Which seems to suggest that Santorum thinks that as President he could appoint “Constitutionalist” state judges. But surely that can’t be the case. Even a box of rocks knows better than that.
But on to his performance. If I were considering how effective a president Rick Santorum could be, I’d look to the issues he spearheaded. And I’d have to say that on the Federal Marriage Amendment, Rick Santorum was a phenomenal failure.
To pass the Senate and be considered by the states, the FMA had to pass both houses of Congress by a two thirds vote. In the House in 2004 that was 290 votes in favor, and in the Senate it required 67. So Sentorum’s goal, his measure of competency, was obtaining 67 Senate votes in favor of the amendment.
There were at that point 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats and 1 Independent. To achieve his goal, Santorum needed to keep hold of the presumed support of all 51 Republicans and pick up support of a third of Democrats.
But before he could pass the FMA and start campaigning in the states, he had one further roadblock. He needed to get a vote. And if the Senators don’t want to vote on an issue, they can fillibuster – or just keep talking. As long as a Senator wants to talk – be it about the bill or his neighbor’s dog or reading the phonebook (as as happened) – they are entitled to do so.
However, there is a ‘sit down and shut up’ provision to keep any one Senator from disrupting business. If any Senator wishes to end debate and just vote already, he can call for cloture. And if three fifths (60) Senators agree, debate stops immediately and the bill itself is voted on. So before he could get his 67 Senators to send the FMA to the states, he needed 60 who were wanted to take a vote.
He didn’t even get half.
Santorum managed to get three Democrats to vote on whether to vote (Byrd, Miller, and Nelson), but he lost twice as many Republicans who refused to bring the FMA to cloture (Campbell, Chafee, Collins, Snowe, Sununu, and McCain – yes, that McCain). His cloture vote fell flat 48 to 50 (Senators Kerry and Edwards were unavailable.)
So what Santorum is loudly touting on his website is that on the FMA, he is a failure. A colossal failure. The box of rocks doesn’t have a website and is making no claims as to its ability to spearhead anything. On this matter of intellect and wit, the rocks win. Again.
But to really set himself apart from a box of rocks, Rick Santorum goes further to explain his understanding of the judicial process and the roll of the judiciary in a checked and balanced government:
Rick Santorum believes that the Judiciary is a critical part of our system of government, but it is the third branch of government under our Constitution, and should not act like the first. President Obama often prefers when it does legislate instead of Congress. For example, when he refuses to defend the Congressionally approved Defense of Marriage Act.
Okay, it can be difficult to understand the workings of Santorum’s brain, but if I have this correct, when the President chooses not to defend a law he thinks unconstitutional, then the judiciary is acting like Congress. By hearing argument in a lawsuit brought by the State of Massachusetts, the judiciary is, in Santorum’s words, “legislating from the bench” and is “usurping” the role of Congress.
I’m a bit at loss as to what Santorum thinks the Judiciary is to do when a lawsuit is presented. Really, I’m not being facetious. I have no idea what he thinks is the appropriate response when a State sues the federal government for what it perceives to be an encroachment on states’ rights. I suspect that it all depends on what the position of his Church is on the matter.
Although Rick Santorum served in the Senate for twelve years, it’s abundantly clear that a box of rocks has a far better grasp on the separation of powers and role of the judiciary.
Teleprompter reader selected to be NOM’s “Face of Minnesota for Marriage”
January 9th, 2012
Unable to find anyone qualified to speak authoritatively on the subject of marriage, the National Organization for Marriage and the other anti-gay activists at Minnesota for Marriage have decided that the face of their anti-gay movement would be Kalley Yanta, a former anchor for a Minneapolis-based television station. Which means that the level of intellectual discourse will be as follows:
“If marriage between homosexuals is legalized, what would some of the consequences be?” she asked rhetorically. “Parents who want to opt their kids out of the public school on the day that they’re teaching about homosexual relationships how it should be okay and accepted, and the parents are charged with discrimination and are hauled away sometimes in handcuffs. … We just can’t allow this to happen.
That probably shouldn’t surprise us much. Minnesota for Marriage is releasing a number of Marriage Minute videos to get their views across. The 18 second long Marriage Minute introductory segment displays pictures labeled “Our Families”, “Our Futures”, “Our Marriages”, and “Our Children”. But the Washington Independent notes that they seem a bit confused on what “our” means.
Minnesotans United for All Families, a coalition of more than 100 groups, analyzed the images in the first video released and determined that not a single person in the video was actually from Minnesota.
“While this video is full of stock images, it is strangely lacking in real Minnesotans,” the group said on its Facebook page. “Perhaps they couldn’t find any real Minnesotans willing to support their divisive agenda?”
One image appears to have been taken by a French photographer of a French family, and another is being used on the website of an India-based health-care center.
Oh my, it’s going to be a busy season for that box of rocks.
Box of Rocks takes impressive 3-0 lead
January 9th, 2012
In the battle of intellect between Rick Santorum and a box of rocks, the rocks are making a surprisingly strong showing. While the rocks haven’t said anything incredibly stupid at all today, Rick Santorum described his position on recognition of gay couples thusly:
The question is do I think I can beat President Obama cuz I have strong feelings on the issue of marriage and other social issues. Everyone on the stage yesterday and the day before has pretty much has the exact same position I have on all those issues. President Obama says he has the same position I have on gay marriage. So people always talk about the… the only difference is between myself and any of them is that when someone asks me a question I answer it.
I must have missed the press conference wherein the President announced that he has the same views on gay marriage as Rick Santorum. But, knowing the President’s positions, we can now conclude that:
- Rick Santorum believes that DOMA (the anti-gay federal “Defense of Marriage Act”) is a violation of the US Constitution
- Rick Santorum supports civil unions that “provide all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage.”
- Rick Santorum may not yet fully support marriage equality, but his views are evolving in that direction.
Or that Rick Santorum is so incredibly stupid that he doesn’t know what President Obama has said on the subject. (One alternate possibility is that Santorum knows Obama’s position and is betting that his audience does not. Frankly, I don’t think he’s bright enough for that sort of political calculation.)
Box of Rocks – 2; Santorum – 0
January 7th, 2012
Reporting from Manchester, N.H.— For the second time in as many days, Rick Santorum waded into the issue of gay marriage, suggesting it was so important for children to have both a father and mother that an imprisoned father was preferable to a same-sex parent.
Citing the work of one anti-poverty expert, Santorum said, “He found that even fathers in jail who had abandoned their kids were still better than no father at all to have in their children’s lives.”
Allowing gays to marry and raise children, Santorum said, amounts to “robbing children of something they need, they deserve, they have a right to. You may rationalize that that isn’t true, but in your own life and in your own heart, you know it’s true.”
Oddly, my heart doesn’t tell me that depriving children of same sex parents the legal and social protections they need will somehow cause imprisoned heterosexuals to be involved in the lives of their children.
Santorum on discrimination
January 6th, 2012
“I have a question and it’s about gay people,” asked the first man to be called on at a Santorum town hall meeting here today. “They are children of God too. Do they have the right to marriage? Do they have the right to serve in the military? Should they be treated like any other citizen? Under your presidency, would you protect their rights or would you diminish them?”
Santorum answered that he doesn’t believe marriage or serving in the military are inalienable rights, but “privileges,” adding, “It’s not discrimination not to grant privileges.”
It’s not discrimination not to grant privileges? Really?
The sad thing is that he probably believes it.
Yeah, I know it’s a cheap shot. But really, Rick Santorum is just… well, not very bright. It’s not only that his policies are not well thought through or that his views are theocratic. It’s the man… he’s just… okay I’ll say it, Rick Santorum is stupid.