Glitter Bomber: Romney Uses 'Hate' to Gain Support

Sam Richards and Nick Espinosa hit Mitt Romney with two glitter bombs during Romney's rally in Eagan on Wednesday.

It was all over in the span of 30 seconds.

Sam Richards, 20, was one of at least two protesters at Republican presidential candidate on Wednesday. He watched as fellow protester Nick Espinosa dumped glitter on Romney at the beginning of the speech and was hauled out by security.

And then it was his turn.

"My nerves went away, I did it, and then I was being dragged out," said Richards, who identified himself as an Occupy Minnesota protester. "It was all said and done in 30 seconds."

Richards was the second of two protesters to hit Romney with a "glitter bomb"—a symbolic gesture employed by LGBT activists, who throw a handful of glitter thrown at a politician or public figure. Similar tactics have been used against other notable conservative politicians including Newt Gingrich.

Romney took the glitter in stride, calling it celebratory confetti after he was hit by the first glitter bomb.

“I’ve got glitter in my hair, but that’s not all that’s in my hair, I glue it on every morning, whether it needs it or not," Romney joked, before continuing with his address.

Richards was escorted out of the building by security, but was not arrested. His actions, he said, were motivated by Romney's lack of regard for gay and minority rights.

"We feel this a fun way to draw attention to an issue that Mitt has been avoiding," Richards said. "They are using hate to gain political support."

Al Anderson September 05, 2012 at 05:22 AM
Nice try - Get Real. Democrats took over both houses in 2006. Bush, never known as a fiscal conservative - didn't help the situation (what with Medicare Part D and his contribution to the war issue), but there is no mistake in hanging the vast majority of the last 6 years of debt on Democrats. The young are getting eaten alive by big government.
Al Anderson September 05, 2012 at 05:24 AM
Andrea Does your comment also apply to leftists who go "undercover"? Other than the leftist Patch writers ... won't leave many people to have a discussion, will it?
Get Real September 05, 2012 at 08:29 AM
Al, subtle shift from "Obama" to "the Democrats." "Vast majority" shows confusion over "discretionary" and "mandatory" spending. 2006-2008 saw "vast" increases in DOD and war costs, certainly not the Democrats initiating that. Also, part of the increase on Obama's watch has been putting war costs into regular spending (where it should be) vs. supplemental spending, where Bush had it. And if you want to, we can also talk about the trillion dollars the Bush tax cuts have cost so far. Debt can be created by things other than spending...
Andrea Morisette Grazzini September 05, 2012 at 11:50 AM
Al, I'll let Wallstreet Journal (WSJ) judge the facts: "It is common to think of the Democrats as the party of entitlements, but long-term trends seem to tell a somewhat different tale. From a purely statistical standpoint, the growth of entitlement spending over the past half-century has been distinctly greater under Republican administrations than Democratic ones." --WSJ Aug 31, 2012 "Notwithstanding the criticisms of "big government" that emanated from their Oval Offices from time to time, the administrations of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George W. Bush presided over especially lavish expansions of the American entitlement state. Irrespective of the reputations and the rhetoric of the Democratic and Republican parties today, the empirical correspondence between Republican presidencies and turbocharged entitlement expenditures should underscore the unsettling truth that both political parties have, on the whole, been working together in an often unspoken consensus to fuel the explosion of entitlement spending." WSJ Aug 31, 2012. This from Pres candidate Romney, might help explain why the budget is not being mitigated by tax revenues: Big businesses are doing fine because they "know how to find ways to get through the tax code, save money by putting various things in the places where there are low tax havens around the world." -Romney, Aug 23, 2012 And, this from Christian Science Monitor: "CEOs pay-related tax breaks, cost taxpayers $14 billion." Aug 17, 2012
Al Anderson September 05, 2012 at 12:28 PM
Andrea -- I'm no fan of most Republicans either, but as you likely know - spending bills are initiated in Congress (even who/how money gets spent these days has been unconstitutionally muddied). Congress over the past 50 years has largely been in control by Democrats. Two significant ime periods when it has not (1992-1998) (2000-2006) been the case. During the 2000-2006 time period -- the Republicans wasted their opportunity to reign in spending as they should have -- (Iraq, Medicare Part D added greatly to the problem) - but almost every Democrat voted for going to war in Iraq and surely, every Democrat wanted Medicare Part D X five. During the 1992-1998 time period - the rate of federal government spending increases declined - mostly due to the Republican controlled Congress at the time...and partially due to Clinton (even though Democrats to this day believe Bill C was wholly responsible for the budget surpluses). Net of this? Federal spending balloons during a period when Democrats control Congress and federal spending increases, but at a smaller percentage when Republicans control Congress. The 2000-2006 time period was an exception to this - but then again, the whole 2000-2010 has been an unmitigated fiscal disaster for the future of this country and both parties are to blame for that
Get Real September 05, 2012 at 06:34 PM
I'm not normally one to quote the Randites, but this tells a story. Time to bite off some of the myths about the "good old days": "Foreign aid has also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. ***Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend.*** (Emphasis mine) He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. "contribution" to the International Monetary Fund. His budget cuts were actually cuts in projected spending, not absolute cuts in current spending levels. As Reagan put it, "We're not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have." The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight." http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488 Yet conservative Republicans hold up Reagan as an ideal... The party of "fiscal responsibility" is a myth, no more. They are "fiscally responsible" only when not in power, and then only in political ads.
Al Anderson September 05, 2012 at 08:00 PM
Neither party has been good at reducing the scale and size of Washington ...but to absolutely sure - the Democrats have done nothing but demogogue the fiscal conservatives about their efforts to do so (remember 2003 when Bush attempted to minimally privatize SS????). The difference is that Democrats have done so on steroids...the Republicans about DOD spending. And again, Congress during the time periods you speak of was controlled by DEMOCRATS. Democrats, in particular, have sold this country down the toilet
Get Real September 05, 2012 at 08:25 PM
At least one writer at that bastion of liberalism, Forbes Magazine, disagrees with you: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
Al Anderson September 05, 2012 at 08:40 PM
Get Real -- Thanks for being covertly dishonest by not mentioning Ungar's (the writer you provide the link for) tagline "Writing from the left on politics and policy". Nice try, buddy. Nothing but fabrication and wallpapering on Ungars' part. George Will provides columns for Time and newspaper syndicates. Are you going to now believe everything he says given the hyper liberal nature of Time/Newsweek and most major newspaper dailies?
Get Real September 05, 2012 at 08:51 PM
Basic logic, Al. Attack the messenger, not the message. Known in logic as "ad hominem." What isn't factual, in your opinion? And are you implying that everything Will says is a lie?
Donald Lee September 05, 2012 at 09:00 PM
Graphs with numbers should *always* be examined to see exactly what they are graphing, and where they got their data. That info is not in this article. The only source I see is "Data: OMB, CBO & Haver analytics". I therefore find the article unhelpful.
Al Anderson September 05, 2012 at 09:20 PM
Sigh, Again, I ask you to look at who wrote the Marketplace article that Ungar is utilizing for this argument...none other than Rex Nutter, another left wing writer (this for Marketwatch). Simple questions -- Who writes the bills in Congress? Which party was in control of Congress in 2009 (the primary year of contention)? Bush signed off on the bills - and Bush should forever live in fiscal hell as far as Im concerned for that. As a side note -- who was in control of Congress during Clinton's years? Ill bet you can guess without having to think too hard. Kinda hard for Clinton to spend money when he doesn't have a bill authorizing the executive branch to do so.....is it? As for the ad hominem attack...you were intentionally trying to be deceitful -- claiming that the Forbes Magazine institutional voice agreed with Ungar (a solo voice of Forbes, just like George Will is of Time). You deserved the "attack" for that.
Andrea Morisette Grazzini September 05, 2012 at 09:26 PM
Al, Don't know that you really want to go down that "who wrote the bills..." track. And, where are commensurate sources to support your claims. Don't see any. I'll take research from a known quantity that supports rhetoric over the alternative (unsupported numbers) anytime.
Get Real September 05, 2012 at 10:10 PM
"Intentional deceit" would be manipulating a quote and not providing a source. I can see that you can read. Good, as I assumed as much. The author's name was right there at the top of the article in Forbes. So much for your "intentional deceit" comment and your weak justification for attack. The author made some points that you have thus far not addressed (aside from engaging in a little more ad hominem). Not so good. That severely limits discussion. Let me see if I follow you so far regarding high spending: Republican President, Democratic Congress: blame Congress. Democratic President, Republican Congress: Congress saves day. Republican President, Republican Congress: an aberration. Democratic President, split Congress: Blame the President. Have I missed anything?
Andrea Morisette Grazzini September 05, 2012 at 11:15 PM
According to Al, writers for BOTH the Wallstreet Journal (Marketwatch) and Forbes are liberal hacks. There is something called an editorial board at all reasonably respectable media. The editorial board is tasked with insuring that what they publish is congruent with the charter of the their publication. So, to claim the pieces are "liberal" is, by inference, to claim their publications are liberal. Not sure Wallstreet Journal and Forbes would agree with you, Al.
Susan September 05, 2012 at 11:50 PM
I love this!! "Let me see if I follow you so far regarding high spending: Republican President, Democratic Congress: blame Congress. Democratic President, Republican Congress: Congress saves day. Republican President, Republican Congress: an aberration. Democratic President, split Congress: Blame the President." May I borrow it?
jaw September 05, 2012 at 11:54 PM
I hope everyone saw Nancy Pelosi's plastic surgery tonight and the head of the AFL-CIO the two biggest pushers of Obamacare, it is such great plan that after it passed the UNION was allowed to opt-out and so was fancy Nancy and the rest of Government. If its so good for us why would they all opt-out, taxpayers already paid for Nancy's clown face.........
jaw September 06, 2012 at 12:09 AM
What part of "its not thier money to give to others" is so hard to understand?
Susan September 06, 2012 at 12:15 AM
Internet troll on the rant again.
Andrea Morisette Grazzini September 06, 2012 at 12:30 AM
Jaw sounds like Ward Tatro. We'll soon find out....
Susan September 06, 2012 at 12:34 AM
I don't remember him using so many........ Or being so crude - you should read some of the disgusting stuff this guy comes up with...my vote is the fringe redneck, undereducated portion of the Conservative party.
Get Real September 06, 2012 at 01:57 AM
I didn't see it. My "ignore switch is still on. Of course you may borrow my synopsis of "Political reality as seen through a very biased lens." I find the "logic" behind it pretty amusing too.
Al Anderson September 06, 2012 at 05:47 AM
Get Real -- not only are you intentionally deceitful.....but you missed the point. Deceit is trying to claim that Forbes Magazine agrees with Ungar's (really, Ungar just borrowed Nutters' spin for his own spin). Republicans have spent far too much money over the past 50 years ...whether they had someone as President or Congress. But it is crystal clear that Democrats have done the most fiscal damage to this country.
Al Anderson September 06, 2012 at 05:57 AM
Andrea Most mainstream media outlets have some variety of spectrum of discourse. Note that Ungar (Forbes) notes that he is the "token" leftist writing for Forbes. Time has George Will write for them ... and Time, like Newsweek is definitely left wing. Rex Nutter and a couple of other leftist journalists write for Marketwatch (WSJ). Forbes, in particular, does not have a leftist slant.....some of MarketWatchs' content does. I never said ALL writers for both MarketWatch and Forbes were. How you came to the conclusion that I said they were is beyond me.
Get Real September 06, 2012 at 06:10 AM
Let's see the "intentional deceit." I said, "At least one writer at that bastion of liberalism, Forbes Magazine, disagrees with you." I ask you, was the writer at Forbes, and did that writer disagree with you? Was the writer clearly identified at the head of the article? No deceit. Logic fail. Game over. Now on to your continued ad hominem. You have yet to address a single point the author made. You have attacked his "leftist" credentials. You have attacked the "leftist" credentials of his sources. But you have not countered one single point the article made. You have provided no sources to counter those I provided. You simply ask people to take it on your word and on faith that "it is crystal clear that Democrats have done the most fiscal damage to this country." Logic fail, "F" in debate class, game over.
Get Real September 06, 2012 at 06:28 AM
PS: 2001-2008 (and who controlled Congress?): aberration. 2009: Horrible very bad day. Logic fail. Every Republican President since Reagan has increased the debt significantly, regardless of who has controlled Congress. When the Republicans had both the Senate and the House of Representatives, along with Bush in the White house, it got far worse. We are still recovering from the result of that. There's a positive, absolute statement. Prove me wrong. Please cite sources.
Andrea Morisette Grazzini September 06, 2012 at 06:34 AM
Al, And your sources are?
Andrea Morisette Grazzini September 06, 2012 at 06:42 AM
Al, And your credentials as a media expert are--, ? I'm unclear beyond Unger how you are so sure of the claims you make. Can you explain how it is that you qualified to determine the political views of specific media? Perhaps you could cite respected sources that buttress your points, as a start. Andrea
Andrea Morisette Grazzini September 06, 2012 at 06:43 AM
Maybe it's Que Nocent Docent(?)
Susan September 06, 2012 at 01:07 PM
Maybe, but he didn't like capital letters, and seemed more fluent in the English language. I think he may be new, but of-course we can't be sure.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something