From Slog:
“About halfway through the handshaking, Santorum was glitterbombed. This was not just any glitterbomb, where a handful of glitter is haphazardly thrown at the candidate: Rick Santorum was glitter bukkake’d: He had glitter cascading down the front of his sweater vest, all down his back, through his hair, and his giant forehead shone in the flashes of photographs like Ke$ha had just vomited on it. But Santorum plodded onward with the weary grace of someone who had been sprinkled with glitter by strangers against his will many times before.”
62 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Deepsix
February 15, 2012 at 7:59 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Well, still better than getting “Santorumed”.
annie
February 15, 2012 at 8:40 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
There is no comment better than that… I won’t even try.
Hank Fox
February 15, 2012 at 8:41 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Wonder if he has a Sanctum Santorum where he gets away from the glitterbomb attackers.
ScottS
February 15, 2012 at 8:48 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I’m a Libetarian and, therefore, a Gary Johnson fan. I will happily vote Republican (for the first time EVER) if Ron Paul gets nominated, but as long as the GOP keeps promoting douches and scumbags like Romney, Gingrich and Santorum, they will continually fail. Epically.
Skepgineer
February 15, 2012 at 10:43 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
that’s a frothy mix of glitter and politics
DaveyGTi
February 15, 2012 at 11:43 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Why glitter? Why not something unpleasant, like fish paste or flour (not that flour itself is unpleasant, but being flour bombed is prob a touch worse than glitter bomb, certainly if I was glitter bombed I’d be more like ‘oh I’m a bit shinier’ and go about my day). Is there some symbolic significance of glitter I’ve missed?
Robert B.
February 16, 2012 at 12:20 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I think they use glitter because it’s fabulous.
Or if you like, because glitter in this context serves as pointed contrast to (and by implication, critique of) the sexist and heterosexist tropes of what constitutes a “masculine” image, which makes a particularly eloquent statement with someone like Santorum who, judging by his public statements, seems to have strongly accepted a traditional, erroneous view of gender and sexuality.
Stephen Frost
February 16, 2012 at 12:20 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I’m assuming it’s a gay rights thing ;-)
Stephen Frost
February 16, 2012 at 12:21 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
^ What he said
nemothederv
February 16, 2012 at 12:44 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
or maybe it just goes with the sweater. Santorum is going for the Mr. Rogers thing and the glitter adds some trolly.
'Tis Himself, OM
February 16, 2012 at 3:23 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
And they’ll fail even worse if they nominate the racist, homophobic, anti-American Ron Paul for anything more advanced than Blackboard Monitor.
Tony
February 16, 2012 at 4:52 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Whoa there. We love our glitter (well some in the ‘community’) and it’s far too absolutely fabulous to waste on that douchebag. Plus it’s too inoffensive. Santorum needs something with a bit more ‘oomph’. Oooh, how about silly string?
Crys
February 16, 2012 at 5:04 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I think if you do it with something nasty, you risk making him look like a martyr and giving a better excuse to people who want to vilify what you stand for as a gay rights activist. Glitter is something non-violent, non-threatening, not associated with anything bad, but at the same time something unusual enough to catch a lot of attention from the cameras and makes a statement that santorum is homophobic (therefore needs a little more glitter in his life).Of course there’s the implicit connection to things “rainbow”, but I think it’s a good choice regardless. At the same time if he complains about it too much and tries to pull the martyr card he comes off as a crybaby.
Raging Bee
February 16, 2012 at 5:04 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Why glitter? I have two guesses. First, it’s kinda sorta original (so far at least); and second, something less savory, like flour or fish stuff as suggested above, would be considered dangerous and get a much harsher law-enforcement response. Flour and other whitish powdery substances, in particular, would bring back memories of that whole anthrax thing, and they’d probably haul you off to Gitmo just for making them go through all the precautionary measures that would entail.
Oh, and what ‘Tis Himself said. If you really think Ron Paul is any different from the rest of the Republican lineup, then you really haven’t been paying attention. Why do you think he’s still a Republican? Duh.
becca
February 16, 2012 at 6:27 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Y’all are overthinking. “glitter bukkake’d” is the *precise* mental image people should have for santorum.
Ray Moscow
February 16, 2012 at 6:35 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
One day this glitter stuff is going to turn some conservative politician gay, and then won’t these people be sorry!
(I mean, the non-self-hating kind of gay)
The Lorax
February 16, 2012 at 7:02 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Santorum covered in glitter.
… and all of you now have that mental image. Good day.
Salmo
February 16, 2012 at 7:17 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
But… but… He doesn’t like war, and would make all the drugs legal!
Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
February 16, 2012 at 8:31 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Why glitter?
Have you ever been in a nursery or kindergarten before? You know those glitter pictures they draw? You remember how that stuff would stick to your hands and get in your hair.
Now imagine being covered with the stuff! Santorum is going to sparkle until November at the rate he’s being glitter-bombed.
It’s nearly invisible in most cases, it sticks around for a long time, and it’s annoying without being disgusting.
Fuck You
February 16, 2012 at 8:43 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Fuck you, McCreight! You piece of shit.
ParatrooperJJ
February 16, 2012 at 8:44 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
One of these days the USSS is going to smoke one of the glitter bombers….
Alyson Miers
February 16, 2012 at 9:18 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I’m annoyed that they didn’t show any pics of Santorum covered in Glitter Bukkake.
Svlad Cjelli
February 16, 2012 at 9:29 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Glittering powders derived from mushrooms contains powerful magic in The Legend of Zelda.
It sets dogs on fire.
And turns money into bigger money.
If it is derived instead from fairies, all bets are off.
carpenterman
February 16, 2012 at 9:40 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Oh no. Oh, no no NO! PLEASE! Don’t make me defend Rick Santorum!
Oh, this is going to hurt…
I’m sorry, but in this case, Rick Santorum is in the right. The ones who glitter bombed him are in the wrong. Miss McCreight, et al, you do wrong to rejoice in it.
I detest Rick Santorum because he seeks to deny rights to a particular segment of the population. Because he does not hold to the principal that all citizens are…MUST be!… equal under the law. If homosexuals have the right to marry who they choose(they do),to adopt and raise children(they do),and to have all the rights shared by all citizens(THEY DO!); then Rick Santorum has the right to be secure in his person. Everyone has the right to appear in public without being assaulted… and yes, he was assaulted. It is illegal to hit someone with something; be it glitter, santorum, or a baseball bat. And if he did, indeed, endure this with “grace”; well, then, he’s the good citizen in this picture, not his detractors.
Equality under the law is the principle at the heart of Rick Santorum’s political opponents.(That’s us,right?) We must not violate this just because it’s funny or provides a momentary sense of schadenfreude. Let’s stick to the high road. The view is better.
KaiVanVlack
February 16, 2012 at 9:49 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I think it might be because even after a few washings, that sweater-vest will probably still have some glitter on it.
Art
February 16, 2012 at 10:16 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Given my preference over the tool used to christen Santorum I would pick a manure sprayer.
Not to sour the mood but how do they keep the glitter out of the person’s eyes?
I was at a party where a couple of ladies were tossing glitter around and got one tiny little square of glitter in my eye. It burned and scraped and irritated. I couldn’t get it out. Everything I did to get it out made it worse. It felt like a ball of barbed wire was in my eye.
Having tried all the tried and true methods, top lid over bottom, hunting it down with a wet Q-tip while staring into a mirror, water splashed from the faucet, etcetera I was desperate to get it out. I was just about to head down to the urgent care center (ER-lite), when a friend had me lay on the couch while she squirt contact lens saline in my eye. The little fucker washed out and was on the towel under my head. A tiny little green square that felt like it was the size of a billboard.
To this day I’m a bit leery about glitter. Tossed in my general direction I reflexively look at my shoes.
Ray Moscow
February 16, 2012 at 10:31 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
If someone gets hurt with one of these glitter things, then all involved are going to look pretty bad (and possibly wind up in jail). And the victim is going to look like, well, a victim.
It doesn’t seem like a good approach, actually.
Richelle
February 16, 2012 at 11:05 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
In Canada, we’re rather notable for pie-ing our politicians rather than assassinating them when we disagree with them. This is even less violent than a whipped cream pie to the face (although less delicious) and certainly isn’t attempting to hurt anyone (nor is it likely that it would). Since rational discourse with this guy is impossible, I think it’s a great way to make a statement and get noticed without getting violent.
On the downside, this could rally the troops behind Santorum. On the upside, if he wins he has zero shot at the presidency. On the downside we will have months and months of Santorum plastered all over the fronts of our newspapers. On the upside, The Daily Show will have plenty of material…
joek
February 16, 2012 at 11:29 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Not being American: do people not have the right to peaceful, non-violent protest in the country which claims to be the protector of democracy? I can’t see how glitter-bombing someone attacks the security of his person…
john@skeptivus
February 16, 2012 at 11:31 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I’m with you ScottS. Paul is not my ideal candidate and what I know of Johnson I like. But it looks like we’ll have another election where the candidates look pretty much the same.
hacka
February 16, 2012 at 11:57 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
The question really is whether the Sanctum Santorum is full of santorum…..given his obsession with Teh Geyz, one really has to wonder.
(FWIW, your blog is rapidly becoming one of my favorite reads – thank you so much for your thoughtful and cogent blogging)
We Are Ing
February 16, 2012 at 12:02 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
From my POV Paul looks exactly the same too.
hacka posting for Dirk Gently
February 16, 2012 at 12:05 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Glitter is also a nice way of hiding the fact that Rick S keeps ducking out of events, ostensibly to go to the bathroom, and actually using a time machine to go back to the 15th century to validate his religious dogma. Professor Chronitis said so….
;-)
Azkyroth
February 16, 2012 at 12:09 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Obama has been very disappointing in many respects, but arguing that him and any of the Repugs are the same is like arguing that being kicked in the shin and having a running chainsaw shoved up your ass are the same.
If you’re going to throw a temper tantrum because you’re not getting everything you want in a candidate, please wait to throw yourself on the floor and kick and hold your breath until after you’ve voted for the lesser evil, because us grownups have to live with the actual consequences of policies that get enacted.
Tom Singer
February 16, 2012 at 12:09 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Here in the US, you do not have unlimited rights to anything. Speech is free right up until the point that you create an immediately dangerous situation (by yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, for example). Freedom of religion doesn’t get you off the hook when your religion commands you to kill the infidels.
Your right to protest someone does not extend to battery. Which is what this was – an act which caused offensive contact, with that intent. Further, it’s entirely possible that this could have caused harm (eye or respiratory irritation), which would become assault. Although I note that I didn’t find anything in the Washington criminal code that deals directly with battery, this sounds like 4th degree assault. And both are also civil torts.
I suppose you could call this civil disobedience. But, as much as I dislike Santorum’s views, I don’t think assault is justified. And, like carpenterman, I think this potentially backfires, making him and his cause look sympathetic. The fact that he reacted to it gracefully makes him look even better.
Azkyroth
February 16, 2012 at 12:12 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
You’re welcome to do what you like in the privacy of your own home with other consenting adults, but we really don’t want to hear about your coprophilia.
Azkyroth
February 16, 2012 at 12:16 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
If we’re going to extend “battery” to dropping glitter on someone then the word has lost all meaning.
Azkyroth
February 16, 2012 at 12:19 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Oh, but dropping glitter on someone is “violent”. It’s “battery.”
No word yet on whether matchbox cars will now be subject to licensing and registration requirements.
Tom Singer
February 16, 2012 at 12:57 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Battery has been interpreted pretty widely for a long time.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/battery
“The second type of contact that may constitute battery causes no actual physical harm but is, instead, offensive or insulting to the victim. Examples include spitting in someone’s face or offensively touching someone against his or her will.”
My pregnant wife, who is a former public defender, delights in telling me that a gentle flick on a pregnant woman is a felony in this state. Not that I let that stop me.
That said, I don’t think it takes a particularly wide interpretation to deem throwing glitter on someone in this situation battery. The room for interpretation generally comes down to consent; in the case that you’re walking down the street during a parade, you implicitly consent to the possibility that someone might throw some confetti at you. That’s a gray area. But I don’t think there’s a question that Santorum has not implicitly consented to having glitter thrown on him.
Brandon
February 16, 2012 at 1:00 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Not to mention, even if no one’s hurt, it almost certainly messes up a perfectly good shirt. I detest Santorum, but I can’t imagine what the logic for it being acceptable to damage other people’s property and person against their will is.
Brandon
February 16, 2012 at 1:02 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
While Wiki’s certainly imperfect, it seems fine to use for general parlance –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault#Battery
In common law, criminal assault often accompanied battery. See common assault. The elements of battery are (1) a volitional act[6] (2) done for the purpose of causing a harmful or offensive contact with another person or under circumstances that make such contact substantially certain to occur and (3) which causes such contact.[7]
How would glitterbombing not fit that description?
Tom Singer
February 16, 2012 at 2:39 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Your sarcasm is amusing, but it’s not a particularly good argument. Violence is not a necessary element of battery.
Drein
February 16, 2012 at 3:20 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I agree
F
February 16, 2012 at 4:12 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Pffft.
F
February 16, 2012 at 4:17 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Which just further illustrates how much of law has lost complete contact with reality.
Tom Singer
February 16, 2012 at 4:23 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
That definition of battery has been in use for quite some time, I believe. Further, do you really think I should be allowed to intentionally touch you against your will, even if I’m not doing it violently (or sexually, I suppose)? If not, what do you feel is an appropriate way to get me to stop?
cottonnero
February 16, 2012 at 4:53 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
“Glitter is the herpes of craft supplies.” -Demetri Martin.
Which makes me even happier, because I thought it was something Dane Cook said, and now the list of “Funny things Dane Cook has said” is back down to zero. Or, I suppose, it was always at zero, but an accounting error made it appear greater. I’ll stop now.
Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
February 16, 2012 at 8:04 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
he was glitterbombed in Fargo a couple days ago too, by an acquaintance of mine who is of course now facing legal trouble for it.
and somewhat tangential to that, here’s the world’s most awesome headline/title ever: Rick Santorum Warns of Terror Strike Against North Dakota’s 40th Most Populous City
Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
February 16, 2012 at 8:12 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
thank you for this well thought out argument. Thanks to you, I’ve changed my mind on everything now and shall be voting for Rick Santorum in the next election.
Azkyroth
February 16, 2012 at 9:03 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
By really pushing “contact,” not being harmful, and not being “offensive” by any reasonable standard in context as a protest against Santorum’s vile behavior?
But of course, ethics only exist when they can be used as a weapon against the good guys.
You’re not fooling anyone.
Azkyroth
February 16, 2012 at 9:11 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Interesting.
How long has that definition been in use…
…and how does it compare to the tenure of a legal definition of rape which held that a wife could not be raped by her husband?
Or might there be more to the case than longevity?
Azkyroth
February 16, 2012 at 9:12 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
In what sense is it ruined?
stuartvo
February 17, 2012 at 5:24 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
That’s OK, they have meds for that now.
Tom Singer
February 17, 2012 at 6:32 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Distinguish it from spitting on someone, which is given as an example of battery. Neither involves direct contact. Neither are necessarily harmful (although certainly bodily fluids can carry disease, and glitter can cause eye or respiratory irritation). Offensive is somewhat subjective, but I think it’s clear that intentionally spitting on someone is meant to give offense, and I think it’s equally clear that throwing glitter on Santorum in this case is meant, at least in part, to offend him.
Tom Singer
February 17, 2012 at 6:37 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
When F said that this is an example of the law having lost contact with reality, I took that to mean that, sometime in the past, the law was in contact with reality, and recently has become less so. I’m not arguing that longevity makes it a good definition.
But my question still stands, to both of you. If you think that violence should be a necessary element of battery, do you think I should be allowed to intentionally touch you against your will, non-violently? If not, what do you feel is an appropriate way to get me to stop?
Tom Singer
February 17, 2012 at 6:40 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Probably in the sense that glitter is a pain in the ass to get out of clothes. Particularly clothes with a heavy thickness (I’m not sure what the proper fabric term here is), like the sweater vests that Santorum seems so fond of. I don’t know if that’s what he was wearing, though.
Tom Singer
February 17, 2012 at 6:44 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
And it really doesn’t matter how vile you believe the object of your protest to be, or how apropos the act is. It’s still battery.
Brandon
February 17, 2012 at 8:15 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
As a number of people have pointed out, it’s pretty hard to get glitter out of a sweater. Regardless of anyone’s personal taste, it’s safe to say that altering the appearance of other people’s clothes against their will isn’t really acceptable.
Brandon
February 17, 2012 at 8:17 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I have no idea who you think I’m trying to “fool”. I’m likely as pro-gay rights as anyone in this thread, and I despise Santorum. Unlike you, I’m apparently not sufficiently blinded by hatred to the extent of being unable to discern how throwing things at people constitutes “offensive contact”.
Santorum is awesome
February 17, 2012 at 9:52 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
good for you!
Karen
February 17, 2012 at 7:44 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
This is the best thing I’ve heard all week. Go go gadget glitter!
Tyler Verbridge
February 17, 2012 at 11:40 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
My daughter’s Lab-Pit mix chews up the door handles and eats the door frames, and I do mean “eats”…