Glittterati or "Making Republican presidential candidates FABULOUS!"

Tim Pawlenty's table after he was glitter bombed.

Michelle Bachmann (in Minneapolis on June 18, 2011) has been the most recent in a series of glitter-bomb incidents, following Tim Pawlenty (at a book signing in San Francisco on June 16, 2011), and Newt Gingrich (at a book signing in Minneapolis, Minnesota on May 17, 2011). In Pawlenty's incident, The Los Angeles Times points out that, as governor, Pawlenty vetoed a bill that would have granted gay men and women the right to the remains of their deceased partners. Regarding a bill that would have allowed domestic partners to sue in wrongful death cases, Pawlenty said, "I oppose efforts to treat domestic relationships as the equivalent of traditional marriage. Accordingly, I am opposed to this bill.” As she was being escorted out by San Francisco police, Code Pink campaigner and glitter thrower Nancy Mancias said, “Where’s your courage to stand for gay rights and for women’s reproductive rights?” adding, “Welcome to San Francisco!”

Former possible Republican candidate, and Baptist minister Mike Huckabee believes the attackers should be prosecuted for assault charges. But as Frances Martel notes in a feature about the first two attacks:

There are several interesting elements to this demand to have the glitterers arrested. On one hand, everything you need to know about Newt Gingrich’s popularity is said in the fact that, while the entire party pointed and laughed when Gingrich got glittered, but the second one of the tiny slivers of metallic paper touched a hair on Pawlenty’s head, Huckabee called for police action (this could, of course, also speak to the lack of popularity of Code Pink, the copycat organization that targeted Pawlenty).

Then there’s the fact that neither candidate was touched by their glitter assailants, though the legal definition of battery (not assault, but no need to split hairs) requires only unlawful or offensive touching caused by the attacker, but does not require said touching to occur between the body of the attacker and that of the victim. It is difficult, however, to see the glitter attacks as battery in a criminal way given the relationship between the bodies of the attacker and victim– no one was punched or directly contacted– and the actual glitter, which touched the victims but did not quite reach the attacker. While these physical relations make no difference in the case of, say, a bullet leaving an attacker’s gun and touching a victim’s body, arguing that glitter should be held to the same standard is a difficult optical argument to make.

One right wing website suggests the the attacks were "organized," ** but a cursory look at the videos shows at least one or both are copy-cat follow-ups to the 1st incident with Newt Gingrich (which used silver glitter/confetti, not the trade mark pink). The only "organizing" element is an invitation at the end of the video clips that if people want to participate, they're directed to a URL for further information.

Or course, the question about security at these events has been raised, and I think that's a fair one. It was Robert Kennedy's assassination in June 1968, after winning the critical Democratic California primary that finally led Congress to expand Secret Service protection to presidential candidates.* But the law stipulates only 120 days prior to the general election. And when the law was originally passed, the process for running for president was much much shorter, and it's also quantitatively different. Running for president seems now to be a gimmick for many candidates to promote their books and other trinkets and lend themselves some ability to command higher speech fees with the use of "presidential candidate". So now you could potentially have up to a dozen presidential hopefuls in the Republican field, the Secret Service resources would be taxed beyond its limits.

I could see where some would say it's risky to charge a presidential candidate (other than giving them money ;), and I'm not sure I could ever do something like this. I think most supporters for gay marriage and gay rights would encourage more positive ways to bring about full equality for all American citizens. But some consider this as a legitimate form of non-violent protest, and it's certainly a lot less aggressive than pieing.

POLL TIME!!!

[Poll #1754336]

===========================================================================
* (Public Law 90-331). Congress also authorized protection of widows of presidents until death, or remarriage, and their children until age 16.

** Some of the comments following that article are an absolute hoot to read. Check out "Hawk": "this better stop OR I WILL DO THE SAME TO EVERY dEM IN OFFICE ! EVERY CHANCE I GET AND THEN THEY TREAT ME DIFFERENT THE FIGHT WILL BE ON !" or how about "American1st": "notice to all politicians if you see glitter coming your way yell GUN – GUN!!! ITS AN ASSASSIN!!!
as loud as you can then watch the fun unfold…" Heh. Someone getting glittered? NOT FUNNY. Someone getting shot? HIGH-LARIOUS.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

mahnmut.livejournal.com

The Glitter terriztz strike again! How much longer will the freedom loving Americans put up with this outrage!?!?!?11one!11eleventyone

We demand that these pink-sprinkling barbarians repent without further delay, and substitute those horrendous glitter bombs with good old-school cakes NOW! (And I DO mean delicious cakes!)

From:

luzribeiro.livejournal.com

Pie. You mean pie. Nice, cream, fruit, pie. With lots of coconut, and kiwi, and... OH MY.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods.

Glittterati or "Making Republican presidential candidates FABULOUS!"

POLL TIME!!!