by Jake Laperruque
Why can’t those darn Republicans stay focused on the issues? At a time like this, when there are No Jobsleft in the American economy, I want our GOP contenders to be discussing their plans to reduce unemployment. But one presidential candidate has found a more important issue, an issue that poses a threat to our basic safety.
And that threat is Glitter Bomb Attacks.
Diabolical glitter bomb attacks have already been carried out on numerous American citizens: Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, and Michelle Bachmann have all been the victims of vicious glitter bombing. Hey, wait a minute, those are all GOP presidential candidates with anti-gay rights positions. Turns out it’s not a coincidence. The glitter bombing attacks are a protest campaign designed to support LGBT rights, highlighting a serious issue by showering politicians in sparkly silliness.
But to yes-I’m-actually-still-running presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, these glitter bomb attacks are no laughing matter. In a recent email to the New York Times, Gingrich declared:
“Glitter bombing is clearly an assault and should be treated as such. When someone reaches into a bag and throws something on you, how do you know if it is acid or something that stains permanently or something that can blind you?”
Assault is a serious criminal charge. Let’s look to Newt’s reasoning to see how he gets to this conclusion. First Gingrich says the glitter could have been acid. This would constitute assault with a deadly weapon, if it actually happened. But it didn’t. To brand the glitter bomb attack as assault on these grounds would be like saying it’s a crime to bring an assault rifle to a presidential town hall event just because its owner could have used it to shoot attendees, and we all know how ridiculous that is. Next, Newt brings up another serious issue. Even if the substance being thrown isn’t a deadly acid, it could be something that – gasp! – leaves a stain. But glitter doesn’t do that either; the worst thing it does to your clothing is make them all sparkly, and if you don’t like the bedazzling all you need to do is wipe it off.
Gingrich’s claim of a crime is based entirely on the fact that the act in question could have been some other hypothetical act. By this logic, any act could constitute assault. The only way to judge whether this “attack” was actually assault is to examine what Gingrich was really bombed with, and given the damage that glitter causes (absolutely none), it seems clear that it’s use – even for bomb attack purposes – does not warrant criminal charges.
As light as this incident seems, the ramifications of this stance by a presidential candidate are no laughing matter. Gingrich’s rant reflects the true extent of his devotion to free speech; for someone seeking to be President of the United States, it is severely lacking.