Woke Leftists embarrass liberals again: heckle Ted Cruz and his wife in a D.C. restaurant

Can we please stop harassing Republicans who dine out with their families, even if we hate their politics? The latest incident was when Ted Cruz (and yes, his views are über-odious) dined out with his wife last night in a Washington, D.C. restaurant. As the Connecticut Post reports:

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and his wife were accosted at a restaurant in Washington, DC, on Monday night after several protesters criticized his support of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court.

As Cruz and his wife, Heidi, began leaving the restaurant, hecklers referred to the sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh and chanted “we believe survivors.”

“Beto is way hotter than you, dude,” one of the hecklers said at one point, in reference to Democratic Rep. Beto O’Rourke, his opponent in the midterm elections.

“God bless you,” Cruz said.

“God bless you too,” a heckler shouted back.

. . . Cruz, like the majority of Republican lawmakers, has supported Kavanaugh’s nomination. Although Cruz described Kavanaugh as “unquestionably qualified” during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing earlier in September, he admitted that the allegations were severe enough to warrant a closer look.

“The allegations … are serious, and they deserve to be treated with respect,” Cruz said during a debate with O’Rourke on Friday.

Apparently Cruz and his wife were forced to leave the restaurant.

Here’s a video showing the louts and thugs harassing Cruz. This comes from the “Smash Racism DC” site, and apparently they’re proud of this behavior. But really, what have these people accomplished? Did they change Ted Cruz’s mind? I doubt it. Did they help ensure Kavanaugh’s withdrawal as a candidate for the Supreme Court? I doubt that, too: that will happen or not happen regardless of restaurant harassment. Did they draw people to the Left? Probably the contrary: this just makes liberalism look bad, and this particular group look like inconsiderate goons who need an anger management course . They have, as Grania pointed out, crossed the line between standing up for what you believe and being a jerk.

This is bullying and virtue signaling, pure and simple. And it’s not the way we should behave. If you think it’s okay, then you must also think that Republicans have a right to bully Barack and Michelle Obama when they dine out. “No socialistic healthcare! No socialistic healthcare!” Christians, too: “No killing babies! No killing babies!” No politician immune!

You’re not going to change my conclusion that this behavior by the Left is reprehensible and counterproductive. If you agree with these thugs, take a number, get in line, and. . . 

I actually emitted a tweet on this disruption this morning, and Seth Andrews backed it up (thanks to Grania for calling my attention to his response):

On the other hand, evolutionary biologist Dan Graur claims that holding certain views (i.e., the views that Dan Graur doesn’t like) mean that a person fofeits his right to privacy.  Graur is apparently He Who Decides who Gets Privacy. He can take a number as above, as my tuchas awaits osculation.

I guess those who (unlike me) are against abortion and consider it murder, also have the right to disrupt the privacy of those who are pro-abortion. If not, why not? Who decides who gets harassed in public? I guess it’s Graur, but I don’t want him as my Decider.



  1. Posted September 25, 2018 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    Today apparently you prove your virtue by hating people.

    • mikeyc
      Posted September 25, 2018 at 9:55 am | Permalink

      It has always been so, it’s just that today many pretend it isn’t hate.

    • Kiwi Dave
      Posted September 25, 2018 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

      Not hate, just tough love. /sarc

  2. Posted September 25, 2018 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    I liked the movie Shane. He knew how to handle people who harassed him while he was sitting in a bar.

  3. Posted September 25, 2018 at 9:43 am | Permalink

    I hope these people do the same thing to Bill Clinton whenever he goes out to eat. I’d hate to think they’re just politically motivated, virtue signaling hypocrites.

  4. Posted September 25, 2018 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    Do they really think that Cruz will change his mind? These idiots apparently are clueless about the fact that such disruptions serve only to energize the radical right’s base in a manner similar to de-platforming their advocates.

    • mikeyc
      Posted September 25, 2018 at 10:11 am | Permalink

      Oh, I’m (for one) quite certain they have no illusions about changing Cruz’s mind. ISTM that they did this for three reasons – to signal to other True Believers that they, at least, are among the chosen, to solidify their own woke cred and….here’s the rub…to exercise their right to petition government for redress of grievances.

      That last bit is the part I’m having difficulty with. In my heart, I know you’re right Douglas – this kind of stunt is almost always counter-productive in the “basket of deplorables” kind of way, but I also think that Ted Cruz is a public figure responsible for a great deal of controversy. It’s unseemly, distasteful and counterproductive to confront him while he is out with his wife, but it’s hard not to see it for what it also is; a protest against a government official.

      So I guess I’m a little conflicted on this.

      • Posted September 25, 2018 at 10:44 am | Permalink

        I understand, but guess that I see protesting government actions as quite different than protesting a government official on private property. As Kucek points out below, Cruz is scum and the opposition should be working diligently to elect O’Rourke rather than wasting energy on restaurant confrontations.

        • mikeyc
          Posted September 25, 2018 at 11:03 am | Permalink

          Yes. To be clear, if these people did this out on the street I think no one here would think it bad mannered or counter productive. Just people exercising their rights. These people may have done the right thing, but they did it the wrong way.

      • Posted September 25, 2018 at 11:11 am | Permalink

        I think the rule should be to not disrupt a political opponent’s life other than to get them to hear your message. Interrupting at dinner does more than send a protest message as it disrupts their meal and affects their family. Protesting during their walk to work is ok but not while they are driving as it might cause a crash. Don’t protest while they are doing their work if it would interrupt it.

        Interrupting someone’s dinner to protest also signals powerlessness. Your cause might be just but you are telling the world that this is the only avenue left to get your message out, making your cause look like a minority position which can be safely disregarded as a minor irritation.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted September 25, 2018 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

          “Don’t protest while they are doing their work if it would interrupt it.”

          The workplace for US senators is the upper chamber of the Capitol Building. Do you object to the protests that occurred there last week during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings?

          • Posted September 25, 2018 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

            Yes, but not as much as interrupting someone’s dinner. Disrupting a meeting with protest is pretty much the same as attempting to stop an invited speaker from speaking by shouting them down. Unless your opponents are actually committing a crime, your protest should not interrupt their ability to go about their life and business.

            • darrelle
              Posted September 25, 2018 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

              This could very easily be seen as sarcasm or worse, but I swear it’s not! I honestly just want to know what your thoughts are on when and where it is appropriate to protest high ranking public servants like Congresscritters?

              I also think confronting scumbags like Cruz in a restaurant or similar setting is a bit unsavory and not the best tactic to oppose such people. I’m not as negative about it as Jerry, but I otherwise agree with him. Though I sure as heck don’t have any sympathy for Cruz.

              • Posted September 25, 2018 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

                I would go with my simple rules. I will admit that I only just came up with these and I was koping (or expecting) the smart commenters on this site would find some flaws in my rules.

                As far as Congresspeople are concerned, I would be against protests in meetings, although perhaps a silent protest where they show a few signs would be acceptable. The congresspeople should be able to conduct their meeting properly. The reasoning is similar to that against deplatforming by shouting down a speaker. Congresspeople have been given a job to do by the voters and this is directly analogous to a speaker having been given a platform. Once the venue has been established, both congressperson and speaker should be able to perform their work. Similarly with debate. If the venue allows the opposition to express themselves, as in an on-stage debate, post-speech Q&A, or Congress calling witnesses and experts to testify, the opponents must follow the rules laid down by the venue.

                An interesting test of my rules is the controversial kneeling of NFL players during the national anthem. Kaepernick was following the rules established by the venue but, since then, there have been attempts to change those rules so as to disallow such protests. Though I side with allowing the players to protest, the debate is certainly valid. Sports player behavior off the field of play is restricted by their leagues so that is also a valid debate. The NBA is proud to allow its players to take part in protests though I am sure they have their limits. I believe that the NFL is perfectly within their right to restrict protests but also have to consider the consequences.

      • BJ
        Posted September 25, 2018 at 11:14 am | Permalink

        Hey, it’s legal (although I wonder when it will cross the line into harassment and/or assault. How close to someone’s personal space do you need to get, how far into their face while shouting at them and intentionally trying to terrify or harass them into leaving a place, do you have to get before it can be considered assault?), but that doesn’t mean it’s good or right.

        • Chadwick Jones
          Posted September 25, 2018 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

          Hell, just blowing smoke in someone’s face can be considered battery.

      • Posted September 25, 2018 at 11:46 am | Permalink


        Well put, and I share your sense of conflict. Elected officials should be answerable to the people. If there’s a clear line somewhere, I’m not seeing it.

        • mikeyc
          Posted September 25, 2018 at 11:52 am | Permalink

          You misunderstand me; I see a clear line. In this case it was on the sidewalk, at the door of the restaurant.

          • Posted September 25, 2018 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

            Bad behavior on public property only?
            The problem is this is not really a protest, it is an attempt to extract a price, to punish. Punishing people for disagreeing with you. No thanks.

  5. Mike Cracraft
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 10:10 am | Permalink

    These people remind me of the ultraleftists (Maoists, PLPers, SDSers, etc) from the 60s. What did all of their bluster accomplish ? Zilch !

    • Posted October 25, 2018 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

      SDS is still good to determine molecular masses of proteins :-).

  6. Ken Kukec
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    Jesus, people, isn’t it shame-inducing enough that he’s Ted Cruz? Let him sit in the dining room and stew in the juices of his own Ted-Cruz-ness.

    I take issue with the claim that “Cruz has been friends with creep Kavanaugh for 20 years.” It is a well-known #ScienceFact that nobody, ever, anywhere enjoyed the company of the detestable Cruz.

    Cruz is now engaged, in this election cycle, in ritual self-abasement of the lowest order. He has actually entreated Donald Trump — the man who mocked Heidi Cruz’s looks in print and threatened to “spill the beans” on her emotional problems; the man who had his Pecker publish National Enquirer pieces claiming that Cruz had had affairs with numerous staffers and that his father was in on the JFK assassination — to hold a rally for him to stave off a potential humiliating defeat in blood-red Texas. Nothing would give me more pleasure in the midterms than to see Beto O’Rourke beat Ted Cruz like a recalcitrant rented mule.

    In the meantime, let’s let the little toad and his wife eat in peace.

    • Posted September 25, 2018 at 10:39 am | Permalink

      KK – totally agree, excepting the part about beating a mule!

    • mikeyc
      Posted September 25, 2018 at 11:01 am | Permalink

      538 has O’Rourke well behind. The Dems really need to do something they are terrible at – voting. Especially in midterms.

    • BJ
      Posted September 25, 2018 at 11:17 am | Permalink

      Ken, at what point can these incidents cross the line into harassment and/or assault? What would have to be done by these people for that to be the case? Not that any of them would ever be arrested, unless they actually got physical. But I’m curious where the line is, so I figured I would ask The Great Ken Kukec, Knower of Law and Human Dictionary.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted September 25, 2018 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

        Well, with an intro like that, I’ll have to answer like Carnac the Magnificent: What would be “trespassing” or “disturbing the peace” (if, since this took place on private property, the restaurant proprietor complained to police)? Otherwise, there would have to be an explicit or implicit threat of physical violence for it to constitute “assault.” If the harassing conduct were continuing, it might give rise to a civil or criminal cause of action for “stalking.”

        If you have any other questions, BJ, feel free to put them in an envelope, seal them in a mayonnaise jar, and leave them on Funk & Wagnalls porch. 🙂

        • BJ
          Posted September 25, 2018 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

          I guess my real question is what is required to meet the standard of an implicit threat. For me, any mob going after me is bordering on an explicit threat (any time I see an angry mob, I just assume that it could turn violent at any moment).

          How much money do I need to put in the jar?

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted September 25, 2018 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

            The legal elements for “assault” vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but most common is “an act threatening harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim.” There has to be an apparent ability to inflict the harm sufficient to cause apprehension in a reasonable person.

            Whether a particular act satisfies this standard is a quintessential jury question.

        • mikeyc
          Posted September 25, 2018 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

          HA! I’d forgotten about the “Funk & Wagnalls” bit. The comic master – some of those skits made my my stomach hurt, I giggled so hard.

        • BJ
          Posted September 25, 2018 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

          If you ever need my services, go to the dumpster in the alley between the Thai restaurant and the old apartment building on on Avenue B between 3rd and 4th street. You will see a giant spider wearing a diaper. Hand the spider a pair of used women’s panties filled with seven dollars in pennies. The spider will leave. Wait exactly five minutes and then turn around. At this point, please do not be alarmed when the ostrich slaps you in the forehead with a decomposing wild-caught tilapia in a brown dress sock, as that is the final step.

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted September 25, 2018 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

            That old routine? 🙂

          • Posted September 25, 2018 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

            You guys courting?!!

            Now, if the woke folk had used your dialogue with/for Cruz, the laughter would have done the job.

    • darrelle
      Posted September 25, 2018 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

      Very nice rant. A pleasure to read.

    • Posted September 25, 2018 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

      “stew in the juices of his own Ted-Cruz-ness”

      I love it. It’s amazing he even got elected in the first place but Texas is a strange place. Sorry to all the Texans out there.

      • XCellKen
        Posted September 26, 2018 at 12:17 am | Permalink

        Coming from the inner city of Houston, Texas, I do NOT accept your apology. From my perspective, Portland, Oregon is a strange place

        • Posted September 26, 2018 at 9:41 am | Permalink

          Yes, Portland can be a little strange too. I don’t live there by the way, in case that’s what you were thinking.

  7. Posted September 25, 2018 at 10:37 am | Permalink

    These actions help the Republicans so much, I can’t help wondering…

    I guess I’m just a conspiracy theorist at heart.

    • Posted September 25, 2018 at 10:45 am | Permalink

      Ha! Hadn’t thought of that – not out of the realm of possibilities!

      • Nicolaas Stempels
        Posted September 25, 2018 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

        ‘Wasn’t that called: ‘agent provocateur’?

        • Posted September 25, 2018 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

          I have heard from officials who are not authorized to speak publicly on the matter that there is credible evidence that the protesters at the Kavanaugh hearings and the Cruz dinner disrupters are funded by a sham organization that secretly funnels Koch money to right wing operatives. By appearing to be leftists, they greatly energize the Trump base.

          Of course, just like the Orange Draft Dodger and his sycophants, I have no evidence for my claim – see how easy it is to make s*** up.

    • Posted October 25, 2018 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

      Sometimes, maybe, but not in this case. Prof. Coyne found the authors bragging online about their achievement.

  8. Rod Wilson
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 10:40 am | Permalink

    All I saw was a bunch of privileged white thugs harassing a poor underprivileged latino couple

  9. prinzler
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    Cruz may be against abortion, but he expresses that by trying to change the law, not by preventing a particular individual from exercising their rights or enjoying their privacy.

    A more analogous situation would be if pro-choice activists intruded into the private dinner of an anti-abortion activist who tried to prevent a particular women from entering a Planned Parenthood clinic.

    The Cruz protestors are taking matters into their own hands when they violate Cruz’s privacy in a way that Cruz is not. This is why we must be a nation of laws.

  10. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 11:11 am | Permalink

    It’s one thing for the owner of a restaurant to refuse a guest, but another for other customers to form a mob to harass someone out of the place. I’m marginally OK with the first, but not the second.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted September 25, 2018 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

      I’d be OK with a spontaneous rebuke of Cruz by restaurant patrons — like the rebuke the opera goers gave Glenn Close at the end of Dangerous Liaisons — especially if the restaurant were in Texas and the customers were Cruz’s constituents. What I object to is activists following Cruz and his wife around and eventually into a restaurant to harass them, which is what appears to have happened here.

      • Posted September 25, 2018 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

        Even then, how does a spontaneous protest get started? Somebody at the next table has to interrupt Cruz’s party to say something obnoxious loud enough for others to hear. Perhaps there’s less guilt for those merely joining a protest in progress but it’s not much cover, IMHO.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted September 25, 2018 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

          Were I in a restaurant where Cruz was eating, I’d be inclined to shoot him a dirty look, or maybe even the bird (if it could be done discretely), but I think I’d wait until he finished eating and was on his way out, so as not to disturb his meal (especially if he were dining with his wife), and so as not to piss off the penurious prick such that he’d stiff the waitstaff.

          • Posted September 25, 2018 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

            I think I would be ok with that too. Perhaps even doing it as I leave so as to avoid retribution from pro-Cruz patrons. Still, it is all risky in a state with so many guns.

          • Posted September 25, 2018 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

            I’m starting to see a rationalization for flipping Cruz off or giving him a snide comment. When one goes out in public, one must expect personal greetings from others. While most are pleasant, there is always the risk of running into an enemy and getting an earful. It comes with the territory. Yeah, let’s go with that.

  11. Posted September 25, 2018 at 11:26 am | Permalink

    “I guess those who, unlike me, are against abortion, also have the right to disrupt the privacy of those like Graur who, they think, are in favor of murder.”

    What our host is demonstrating here is the one quality that is most lacking in our public discourse these days—namely, empathy. You could count on one hand the number of pro-choice people who ask themselves “What would I do or say if I sincerely thought that abortion was murder?” If I ask myself that question, I’m forced to answer that I hope to hell I’d do exactly what the pro-life people are doing—namely, not rest until abortion was outlawed. Ditto, of course for the number of pro-life people who ask themselves “What would I do or say if I sincerely thought abortion wasn’t murder but simply a woman exercising the right to control her body?”

    This inability to get inside the head of someone who thinks differently than we do is a failure of imagination and, alas, one that we are all to some degree guilty of.

  12. Posted September 25, 2018 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    Totally agree, although I hate the concept of “virtue signaling.” I suppose there is such a thing, but I’ve been accused of it simply for posting my opinion on FB. When is it posting an opinion in the hopes that somebody will be influenced by that opinion, and when is it virtue signaling? And who makes that determination? But it’s totally ridiculous to attack politicians like this while they’re trying to eat. It accomplishes absolutely nothing good, and I wish people who stop supporting this thug-like behavior by cheering it online. Shutting down speakers with whom you disagree is also shamefully ridiculous. I wish this whole faction on the left would grow up.

    • Posted September 25, 2018 at 11:40 am | Permalink

      I wish people *would* stop supporting – not *who* stop supporting. I’m getting too spoiled with the edit feature on FB – need to proof more carefully before I post on here.

    • Posted September 25, 2018 at 11:42 am | Permalink

      If you are at a party and correct someone who says “monkey” when they should have said “ape”, that’s probably virtue signalling. If you chastise the BBC for publishing a crap evolution quiz, it isn’t.

    • gayle ferguson
      Posted September 28, 2018 at 12:52 am | Permalink

      Yes, this current fashion for spouting the latest trendy phraseology (“virtue signalling”) at anyone on the left who expresses an opinion in opposition to that of the right-wingers really bugs me too.

  13. Mark Sturtevant
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 11:45 am | Permalink

    I sometimes agree with Dan Graur about stuff, and sometimes I don’t or don’t entirely agree with him. Here he cites that an anti-abortionist has forfeited rights to privacy b/c women should have autonomy in their reproductive rights. The problem here is that an anti-abortionist would have an even greater reason in their mind to harrass any feminist, since by supporting the right to choose you are condoning murder of the unborn. To their mind that is a far worse problem then ‘mere’ right to autonomy.

    The more I think about all these arguments on either side, the more I weary of seeing people simply retreat to their base and shout their views without caring whether it solves anything.

  14. docbill1351
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 11:50 am | Permalink

    I think Ted Cruz should be harangued everywhere he goes. Although Cruz tries to hide behind a holier-than-thou cloak of civility, Cruz is the most mean-spirited, self-serving scoundrel in the Senate. He has done absolutely nothing for Texas, nothing for the country and has an open disdain for the people he supposedly represents. Ted Cruz should be followed around by robed monks clanging a bell and intoning, “Shame! Shame!”

    • Posted September 25, 2018 at 11:57 am | Permalink

      Ha! I like your spirit and share your view of Cruz: he’s worse than Trump. Worse, even, than Hillary. As an expression of one’s contempt for the man, your post is right on. As a recipe for practical action, not so much.

    • Posted September 25, 2018 at 11:58 am | Permalink

      Yet he is about even with his competition, Beto O’Rourke, in the polls. The latter just came out against the Cruz dinner protest.

    • darrelle
      Posted September 25, 2018 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

      Reminds me of the Queen of Garbage scene from The Princess Bride.

      Instead of robed monks have that old lady follow him around.

      “So bow down to him if you want, bow to him! Bow to the King of Slime, the King of Filth, the King of Putrescence!! Boo! Boo! Rubbish! Filth! Slime! Muck! Boo! BooO!! BOOOO!!!!

  15. Posted September 25, 2018 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

    With all due respect, the moment a man decides that he is allowed to dictate to women what to do with their reproductive organs, which in case you did not know, Dr. Coyne, are private, that man loses the right to privacy.

    With all due respect to Dan Gruer — which I suspect is not very much — he sounds clueless.

    • Posted September 25, 2018 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

      “With all due respect to Dan Grauer — which I suspect is not very much — he sounds clueless.”

      Though not strictly possible, we should try to take Professor Grauer as seriously as he takes himself.

    • BJ
      Posted September 25, 2018 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

      “With all due respect, the moment a man decides that he is allowed to dictate to women what to do with their reproductive organs, which in case you did not know, Dr. Coyne, are private, that man loses the right to privacy.

      — Dan (((Graur)))”

      Let’s turn this around: “the moment a man decides that he is allowed to dictate to people what to do with their mouths and words, which in case you did not know, Mr. Graur, are private, that man loses the right to privacy.”

      Well, I guess it’s open season on Dan Graur. We can now harass him and his family any time they’re in public.

    • BJ
      Posted September 25, 2018 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

      I also find this sentiment of “the moment you disagree with my personal philosophy, you lose X right that is should be afforded to all people.”

      I certainly believe that a woman’s choice regarding abortion is a private one, but it is a legitimate philosophical difference of opinion. Some people think the fetus is not part of a woman’s reproductive organ, but a separate being, and that’s a perspective that is a legitimate difference of opinion. To say that anyone who disagrees with Dan Graur on a specific issue deserves to lose certain rights that should be inalienable is arrogant, childish, disconcerting, and pathetic. What other rights should the be stripped of? Which views can people disagree with Dan on without losing certain rights, and which views are off limits for disagreement? Why should Dan be arbiter?

      Scratch the last question, as we know why: Dan is the kind of person who thinks he is better and smarter than everyone else.

      • Posted September 25, 2018 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

        Further, Graur’s logic requires that HE deny some women the right to an abortion. If a woman is pro-life then by Graur’s criterion she has forfeited any privacy right, including the right to an abortion.

        • BJ
          Posted September 25, 2018 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

          That’s some pretty clever logical deduction there. I like it!

      • Posted October 25, 2018 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

        I am pro-choice, but I am also a biologist, and I have an unflattering opinion of anyone who thinks that the fetus is “part of a woman’s reproductive organ”.
        The only fetus that allegedly matched this ridiculous concept was Jesus.

  16. Ken Kukec
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

    Ted Cruz’s political opponent in the senate race this Fall, Beto O’Rourke (who’s both a nice guy and knows Texas voters), has denounced this harassment of Cruz and his wife:

    • BJ
      Posted September 25, 2018 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

      Good for O’Rourke. He didn’t play politician here and stood up for what he feels is right.

      • Harrison
        Posted September 25, 2018 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

        I’ll have to disagree as I think this is smart politics in addition to being the right thing to do.

        O’Rourke won’t pay any meaningful price from the left and will gain the respect of many independents. His entire campaign so far has mostly been avoiding the smearing of his opponent and focusing on positives in his own platform so this appears to be perfectly consistent.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted September 25, 2018 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

          Yeah, I think so, too. Nice to see once in a while that the two — smart politics and the right thing to do — aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. (Only one candidate in the Texas senate race is capable of an honestly magnanimous gesture.)

          Beto’s still an outside shot, but it’d be a thrill to see him win.

        • BJ
          Posted September 25, 2018 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

          Damn it, you’re right. For once, I put my cynicism to the side, but you brought me back to my senses 🙂

          • darrelle
            Posted September 25, 2018 at 2:16 pm | Permalink


            Had me going for a sec there BJ.

    • Posted September 25, 2018 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

      I’m thinking we’ve got epic political game playing here. Cruz supporters pull of this apparent harassment (“Beto is hotter, dude” is the giveaway), and Beto responds by sounding noble.

  17. Jon Gallant
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

    Counterproductivity is what might be called an occupation disease on the Left. During the era of what the Vietnamese correctly call “the American War”, there were many public demonstrations in this country against US prosecution of the war. After about 1968, the demos were often enlivened by young people who shouted “Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh”, imagining themselves to be the American branch of the VietCong. John Jacobs of SDS went so far as to proclaim “We are the guerillas behind enemy lines!” Later, public infantile tantrums followed in Chicago.

    These mock guerillas couldn’t have done more to help the Republican Party and to sabotage liberal politics. I submit that reaction to this behavior was the major factor in Nixon’s landslide reelection victory in 1972, and generated what later on came to be called the “Reagan Democrats”.

    • BJ
      Posted September 25, 2018 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

      Your comment reminds me of an all-time great lyric: “but if you go carryin’ pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow.”

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted September 25, 2018 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

      “Later, public infantile tantrums followed in Chicago.”

      There were plenty of “public infantile tantrums” in ’68 Chicago all right — most of ’em by Mayor Richard Daley and his jackbooted thugs.

    • Taz
      Posted September 25, 2018 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

      These mock guerillas couldn’t have done more to help the Republican Party and to sabotage liberal politics.

      It also detracted from the very real, justifiable outbreaks of anger that were happening in the inner cities. People found it easier to dismiss the riots in places like Detroit and Newark by conflating them with white middle class college students taking over administration buildings.

  18. Christopher
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    So, we spend so much time and effort pushing anti-bullying campaigns in schools, try people in courts for online bullying, get mouth-foamingly angry at anti-LGBT bullying, but it’s ok to bully a couple while they’re trying to to have a meal? I’m confused. Can someone please make a list of times when it is OK to bully someone and who it is ok to bully?

    • BJ
      Posted September 25, 2018 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

      It’s really quite simple: people who have certain political views, or make a joke that offends someone considered to be one of the “good people,” or doesn’t sufficiently take part in activities deemed politically important (e.g. the Weinsteins), or are part of subcultures deemed “toxic” by media (e.g. gaming), etc. can be bullied. Bullying about 70% of the population isn’t considered bullying by the anti-bullying activists; it’s considered activism.

  19. Harrison
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

    Saw some people on Twitter calling the people who harassed him in DC “constituents.” Were they from Texas, which Cruz represents? If not, they are not his constituents.

  20. Ken Kukec
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

    Has not this man suffered humiliation enough?

    • Posted September 25, 2018 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

      Another confirmation of my Hoosier bias to never trust a man who has zero hoop skills!

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted September 25, 2018 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

        At an appearance in a gym in Indiana, Cruz actually called a basketball hoop a “ring,” if you can imagine that!

        Is there no depth to the man’s depravity?!

        • Posted September 25, 2018 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

          Blasphemy!!! Much worse that calling Eucharist wafers crackers!

    • Posted September 25, 2018 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

      I want to see Cruz one-on-one against Obama. He’d wet his pants.

  21. Posted September 25, 2018 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

    I do not support the views of Cruz.
    Nor do I support the hooligans who purport to represent liberal values.

  22. Posted September 25, 2018 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

    I see a mini ‘sombrero fallout’, empty restaurant, bloodied serviettes, spilled glasses, upturned tables, flashing lights,
    a shoe…
    I don’t know why but i just see Texas ‘loaded’ with guns.

    Cruz’s rights were wronged, shit happens when the left disavows a right.
    The reverse probably applies but not lately.

    Have to say a silent protest would be just as un-nerving as a loud one.

  23. Posted September 25, 2018 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

    A couple of old person opinions:

    1. It is not all right to verbally, or otherwise, harass people, even Ted Cruz, in a restaurant or outside it. If you can communicate with any person politely, do so. If not, call, write, discuss with like thinkers or non, AND vote.

    2. Re Dan Graur: All of a female’s body is private, not just sexual organs. She is entitled to self-determination on any issue pertaining to her brain and body.

    Despite the numerous youngsters who unintentionally become pregnant in the early stages of learning about sex, not all are suitable parent material for various reasons. We need to care more about the people on both sides of this equation. Not all U.S. children have good, nurturing parents who can afford to provide good environments. And those who oppose abortion do not step up to offer care for these unwanted, uncared for children. Our social network is insufficient and we all pay for it. But, especially the children.

    • BJ
      Posted September 25, 2018 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

      Now that I think about it, I’m just as offended by the fact that these protesters were disturbing all the other diners.

  24. Posted September 25, 2018 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

    Cruz and his wife were at Fiola, where the tasting menu in $145/person with a $165 supplement for the caviar, and a bottle Barolo wine starts at about $235/bottle. If these people are protesting against Cruz he’s in deep shit.


    • Posted October 25, 2018 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

      Revolutions are usually led by rich folks using the poor as pawns to smash rich competitors. Was Lenin working class? Was Che Guevara? Nope.

  25. mordacious1
    Posted September 25, 2018 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

    The Left despises Ryan Zinke and yet he and his family dine without disturbance while Sarah Sanders and Ted Cruz get harassed. How come? I would pay to watch these clowns go after Zinke’s family in a restaurant.

    • Posted September 25, 2018 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

      Zinke is corrupt scum. He doesn’t even know how to rig up a fly rod properly, getting it humiliating ass backwards, although he pretended to do so in a photo op (being all Montana sportsman, you know), and was caught red handed. Blamed in on a staffer, of course.

      I am so sick of these phony, down-home populists, who are actually apologists and enablers for the polluting mega rich, and are taking credulous voters for a ride against their self interest.


      • mordacious1
        Posted September 25, 2018 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

        That may be true. More reason that he and his family should be harassed while dining. I just hope there’s a camera present. Ever see the movie Roadhouse? It would be like that.

        • Posted September 25, 2018 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

          He’d scurry out the back door, just like Cruz did.

          • mordacious1
            Posted September 25, 2018 at 9:26 pm | Permalink

            Former members of Seal Team 6 don’t scurry out the back door.

            • Posted September 25, 2018 at 9:30 pm | Permalink

              He’s not a Seal now, as though that even matters. He’s just another corrupt politician.

              I’m frankly upset about the deification of former military.

              • mordacious1
                Posted September 26, 2018 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

                I’m not deifying him, I just have a policy not to get in scuffles with anyone who passed BUD/S and SQT. I would suggest that these people have the same policy. Sarah Sanders or Cruz, yes, Zinke, not so much.

            • Posted September 26, 2018 at 12:49 am | Permalink

              They do if sufficiently outmanned and out armed. They are trained to be smart, survive and win, not go out in a senseless blaze of glory.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted September 26, 2018 at 7:05 am | Permalink

      Ryan Zinke is a corrupt, venal, lying asshole who’s doing real damage at the Department of the Interior — part of the swamp Donald Trump has installed in the executive branch of government.

      But you think he would resort to physical violence if confronted by protesters, and you think that’s cool. Is that what you’re saying here?

      • mordacious1
        Posted September 26, 2018 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

        A. If Zinke is the worst of the worst, then he’s the guy to harass, not Sarah Sanders.
        B. If you do go after him and shove his wife in a restaurant, you will regret it.
        C. It won’t happen, because these people are cowards.
        D. If he was to smack one of these assholes into next Tuesday, it would be fine with me. It’s like that guy who got in Buzz Aldrin’s face…enough is enough.

  26. Posted September 25, 2018 at 8:39 pm | Permalink

    The article said that Cruz and his wife were about to leave the restaurant. So at least their meal was not interrupted. The protestors should have waited till they exited the place.

  27. Posted September 25, 2018 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

    If I owned a restaurant (which I don’t, and don’t aspire to), and if a high-profile member of the Trump administration tried to make a reservation, I’d refuse. I’d refuse for two reasons:

    (1) I don’t want a scene.

    (2) I don’t want to be associated with them.

    Would that be my Constitutional right? Or would I just be an asshole?

    • Posted September 26, 2018 at 12:54 am | Permalink

      It would be your legal right under present law. I don’t think you have a right not to serve them, but do far the Supreme Court does not agree. I hope we will be dome reasonable people on the court who will change that ruling.

    • Posted September 26, 2018 at 12:55 am | Permalink

      And I think you would also be an asshole.

    • Posted September 26, 2018 at 8:05 am | Permalink

      Those two options are not mutually exclusive.

    • Posted September 26, 2018 at 9:38 am | Permalink

      I think you would quickly become an ex-restaurateur. You can’t afford to alienate customers. The restaurant business is tough.

      • Posted September 26, 2018 at 10:03 am | Permalink

        Like the athletic shoe business?

        I would consider hosting the enablers of this ignorant, dishonest narcissist tantamount to hosting a party of neo-nazis.

        • Posted September 26, 2018 at 10:14 am | Permalink

          Nike’s calculation is a little different. They figure to attract more buyers than they lose. Not sure that would work with a restaurant. Perhaps if it was named “No Assholes Served Here” it might work.

          Speaking of serving Nazis, I once visited Salt Lake City in the 80s and had dinner with some friends at a nice restaurant. (I think it was called The Bird Cafe but I couldn’t swear to it.) While we were enjoying our dinner, we could hear faint sounds of applause from the banquet room downstairs. We happened to leave the restaurant at the same time as the banquet crowd. Turns out it was some kind of Nazi group. They were dressed in full Nazi uniforms! It occurred to us that they might have been in some kind of play but they didn’t seem like theater people. We didn’t stay to chat.

    • Posted October 25, 2018 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

      Then, it would not be a restaurant at all, but a party club offering meals.
      Not a bad thing by itself, but there are many people who want to eat without having their opinions evaluated by the service provider.

  28. max blancke
    Posted September 26, 2018 at 8:20 am | Permalink

    Right now, there does not seem to be much of anything to counter this. But it is happening with increased frequency and severity.
    So I would expect pushback to begin occurring in some form.
    Much of this comes from Antifa, who are more or less the same group, with the same philosophy, as they were in Germany around 1920. That was a different era, but the Emergence of the Freikorps was the result then. I don’t know if that is likely here.
    What I am sure of, is that these sorts of things will continue to ramp up in magnitude and frequency until someone starts pushing back.

    • Posted September 26, 2018 at 9:47 am | Permalink

      There’s considerable pushback on Twitter. Many Left Luminaries and Never Trumpers have condemned protestors interrupting the Cruz’s dinner. Often they declare such acts are playing into the opposition’s hands.

      • max blancke
        Posted September 26, 2018 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

        All the rage and hysteria do seem pretty counterproductive.
        I get opposing Cruz. The guy bugs me, and always has.
        But the whole thing about people who are in a constant state of outrage to the point where they become almost incoherent, is scary.
        I don’t see such performances and immediately think “These people should be in charge of everything!”

  29. Posted October 25, 2018 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    “This particular group look like inconsiderate goons who need an anger management course.”

    Well said!

%d bloggers like this: