1. Oliver says

    Yeah, can someone explain to me the purpose of glitter bombing? I personally see none. Wouldn’t it be the same as a black person throwing a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken at someone who disliked blacks? I mean, what’s the point?

  2. LiamB says

    I have to agree that glitter bombing is idiotic. It’s frustrating that those who seem intent on doing it just can’t grasp how ridiculous it looks.

  3. MarkUs says

    Mitt is just constant boot in the mouth as a candidate with a microphone. I understand he’s campaigning in Michigan as was asked something as simple as “Tigers or Red Sox?” and blew that even. Not even a “I like both teams.”

  4. Bill says

    Glitter bombing is like masturbation. It might make the person doing it feel good but it won’t help him make any friends.

  5. 99% says

    He’s right on the mark! I’ve never understood it. In MY day, we threw CONDOMS at politicians to get the point across. All Mittwit and Sanctatorum did was turn glitter bombing into an “I must have won because I’m already covered in confetti!” moment.

    Time for the old queens to show the young ones how it’s really suppose to be done.

    ACT UP, babe, ACT UP.

  6. endo says

    It has to be noted in every one of these posts: All this glitter bombing is being done by a straight guy. It is not gay activists.

  7. PTBoat says

    Glitter bombing is the step from the pie in the face actions toward people like Anita Bryant. It’s useless and counter productive.

    What upsets me is that people say that the whole Santorum Google problem is just because of his comments on same sex marriage. The comments made about Man on Dog, by Santorum, were made with regard to the decriminalization of sodomy in the Lawrence v Texas decision. He wanted us to remain criminals and then made that comparison.

  8. Vincenzo says

    The guy who glittered Romney is facing time in federal prison. This is a criminal act. It isn’t cute or fun.

    They should arrest the trans activists who glittered Dan Savage and send them to prison. A men’s prison.

  9. Dan Cobb says

    I think it’s not an unreasonable thing to do. Clearly it’s not intended to hurt anyone (good); it’s also intended to raise awareness of a politician’s negative position on gay rights issues (good); the media only cover the glitter-bombing and not the reason WHY that politician was glitter-bombed (bad, because the greater public isn’t edified about that politician’s negative view of gays/gay rights; etc. I have no problem with the glitter protests, I do have a problem with media outlets (including John MSM Stewart) reporting about the bombing, but ignorint the bomber’s reasons for doing so. If you’re going to report about the bombing, report the entire story. Yes, glitter-bombing looks ridiculous if the message behind the bombing is completely ignored. Very typical MSM approach to “reporting” these days.

  10. Paul in Charleston says

    One could make the case that passive resistance in the form of a lie-in, for example, is also acting like “petulant children” that chaining oneself to a fence is acting like a petulant child, that chanting what ever slogan is childish. What ever you feel about glitter bombing it IS getting press coverage and continues to draw negative attention to these candidates. What Jon perhaps does not understand is that Santorum thinks of gay people as being silly and frivolous and sinners, so in a way glitter bombers are throwing that back in his face

  11. Duck says

    My main problem with glitter bombing (and pie in the face, etc) is that it sets a precedent wherein someone who disagrees with the target runs up and throws something on the target. If we do glitter on anti-gay bigots, how long before someone on their side throws acid or some other harmful material on one of us?

  12. JC says

    I completely agree. I supported this the first few times it happened, but now I find it just embarrassing.

  13. benwick says

    Of course nobody covers the reason for the glitter bombings. Because glitter bombings can’t and won’t be understood as some kind of argument, because: they are not. Throwing objects at your opponents is no form of communication – it will only raise awareness for the act of throwing, not for the reasons. And you can’t compare these bombings with forms of passive resistence. The latter doesn’t ridicule people. No discussion can be continued or started by ridiculing people. Period!

  14. Matt says

    I do not understand the comparison (or maybe I just find it in poor taste) between gays and glitter, and blacks and KFC (re:Oliver)

    That being said. I agree that throwing something at anybody, regardless of how non-threatening an object it is, defeats what I assume is the purpose. Hell shout them down with what you take issue but throwing something, even some sparkly, only brings attention to the act rather than the issue at hand.

  15. MichaelJ says

    I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who thinks glitter-bombing is stupid and at this point counter-productive. +100 re: Bill’s comment.
    Endo, is it true that the glitter-bombing is done by one straight guy? How do you know this? I’ve never read anything about any individual who has glitter-bombed.

  16. endo says

    It’s true. Nick Espinosa is the activist behind glitterbombing. He’s glittered Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney.

    He’s straight.

  17. Caliban says

    Add another voice to the anti-glitter-bomb chorus. It hasn’t been clever or interesting since the 2nd time it was done. And to those complaining that the media doesn’t report one the motivations of the people doing it, shouldn’t effective protest be self-explanatory? If people have to look to a secondary source, a report in the paper or on TV, in order to understand whatever point it is you’re trying to make then you’re defeating the purpose.

    It’s important that we maintain the high road because our cause IS the morally and ethically correct one and maintaining our dignity throws their pettiness into greater relief. And acting like Rip Taylor on The Gong Show circa 1977 isn’t the way to to do that.

  18. JEsus says

    @Vincenzo, your comments are pretty ugly and disgusting. Send the trans activists to a men’s prison? With the implication that they will be raped. Cute

  19. matt says

    @Jesus. Agreed wholeheartedly. It’s always unfortunate coming to this site (which is commented on mostly by accepting people) to see ignorant comments like that.

  20. SFRowGuy says

    Waste of good glitter. It’s like ‘make-up on a pig’, ‘perfume on a skunk’, ‘glitter on santorum’.

  21. TJ says

    I don’t know that this is anything more than, as BILL above so nicely opined above, an act that makes just the person doing it happy. As for being harmless, I also don’t know that I’d fancy getting glitter in my eyes. Seems at the least, irritating, and at worst, potentially damaging. An assault. Past time to rethink this strategy. Any suggestions?

  22. Jon says

    Really? I am disappoint, America. These are people who will taser you for speaking out against them. Remember those ‘Occupy’ guys at Santorum’s rally. Don’t you think that’s an assault? I am flat out agreeing that glitter-bombing is an assault. If you are prepared for the consequences, you should do it.

    Some of you keep saying that it isn’t in our best interest, or that it is counter-productive. You are the stupid ones if you think rational, logical arguments will sway the Bachmanns and Sontorums in America. They dislike you because a book tells them to dislike you. They don’t need a reason to dislike you. The rational arguments are all played out. Trust me, at this point SHAME is productive.

    Civil disobedience is a valid political strategy.

  23. sparks says

    I’ve agreed with Jon over the past five hundred comments he’s made about repubs, and I’m gonna have to agree with him on this.

    Sorry, glitterers.

  24. Caliban says

    Throwing anything at or on someone isn’t “civil” anything. By all means protest, but leave the glitter in third grade classrooms where it belongs.

    You’re absolutely right that civil discourse isn’t going to change the minds of the Santorums, Bachmanns, or Romneys of the world. But neither is a handful of glitter. People like them are HOPELESS due to the religious dogma they adhere to instead of actual morality or ethics. If you’re waiting for the bright light of reason to dawn on them or shame at their rhetoric and behavior, don’t hold your breath.

    It’s the people who aren’t lost causes who need to be reached and it’s calm reason that will eventually wear away their resistance. All glitter-bombing gets you is “Some jerk just threw something! Oh, glitter. Well, you know how much those gays like sparkly sh*t!” I’d hardly count that as a “win.”

  25. Jon says

    Depends. Shame will change some of their bigotry, especially the more superficial types of religious people concerned with appearances. Shame will not change the staunch fundamentalist religious people, I agree. But Santorum and Bachmann have a platform and use (or misuse) that platform. They contribute to the anti-gay rhetoric responsible for a culture that promotes abuses against gay people.

    They think that homosexuality is a sin, immoral, and an evil act. They think they can cure you of a psychological problem. They provide legitimacy for people who demonize gay people. And when confronted with scientific studies they claim that the studies require interpretations. When confronted with logic, they shrug and say that the Bible tells them what to think.

    Shaming them is not always for the purpose of changing their minds. Haters gonna hate. Shaming them is to shut them up, to change the tone of discourse by changing the rhetoric. I would wager that there are still quite a few racist people in the US even though most people wouldn’t think of using the N-word EVER.

    If you are worried about bullying and about the stigma that young gay people face, especially in certain pockets of the country that are heavily fundamentalist, then you should be supportive of changing the rhetoric. One way to do that is to shame people into silence. I think Jon Stewart is wrong on this one.

  26. Bill_IE says

    Enough. Stewart is correct, this is not clever and serves to annoy rather than engender sympathy, support and/or understanding.

  27. says

    I was so disappointed by Jon, and his magnificent staff, which he typically has such a firm grip on.

    Kidding aside, the ‘petulant children’ remark was inexcusable. If nominees were virulently anti-Semitic, calling for the conversion of Jews to a ‘real’ religion, supporting violence against Jews, advocating disenfranchisement of Jews from public settings and offices, and brandishing misinformation about his people in a disrepectful and hateful way….and activists began tossing challah at them in response, I guarantee it would not be met with this level of disrespect and chastising.

    It wasn’t an arbitrary action. It’s not being done without provocation. As mentioned, let’s see some journalism, exploring the reason for the protest and outrage. You know, a novel though for the news; both sides of the story.

  28. says

    And, isn’t it ironic (but not at all uncommon) that the perpetrators of hate like the Republican nominees (who are far from innocent) face NO FINES and NO PENALTIES for hate speech, infringing on the rights of others, building up riot-level hatred in the masses, etc., but a man who engaged in non-violent civil disobedience is imprisoned?

    No, it’s business as usual for those in power, and those who oppose them. Two sets of rules.