If Mayor Bob Filner wants to nibble on Hooters hot wings, he’ll have to take his sticky fingers someplace else.

San Diego Republican Party director Francis Barrazza noticed an interesting sign in the window of a Rancho Bernardo Hooters restaurant:

Bam! And what makes it even more awesome is that apparently, this was a city-wide decision.



From a Hooters in San Diego’s Gaslamp Quarter:



Last week, Glenn Beck urged San Diego business owners to condemn Filner’s behavior and download signs to post in their windows. San Diego Hooters proprietors took him up on it!



The official word from Hooters is that the Filner ban didn’t come from the top, but the signs can stay.


Ace illustrates Democrat mayor’s war on women with #BobFilnerPickUpLines

Shudder: Filthy Filner will cling to his mayorship, remain skeezy while doing so [pics]

Pervs in paradise: Ace previews Filthy Filner and Anthony Weiner’s image makeovers

War on women: Feinstein calls on Filner to resign; Ladies’ man Paul Begala praises her with insult?

Bob Filner’s attorney asks city to pay mayor’s legal fees in harassment suit

Bad news, ladies: Mayor Filner will not meet privately with you in August

Politico assists Mayor Bob Filner with (image) rehabilitation effort

Gloria Allred unveils ‘Proceed at your own risk’ sign for Bob Filner’s office

Snark-attack! Lucianne Goldberg on why CNN didn’t identify Filthy Filner as a Dem (plus, bonus Ace tweets)

Bob Filner’s former colleague Nancy Pelosi wants sick ‘Slap Hillary’ game taken down

Mayor Bob Filner finishes sex harassment therapy early, but not before locks changed

‘Let him put his recovery in you’: Andy Levy, Allahpundit and Ace shred Filner’s ‘magical’ recovery

Last year, Planned Parenthood praised Bob Filner for defending women

  • The Masked Avatar

    When you’ve lost Hooters …

    • BlueGood

      No doubt Bob Filner will NOT get the Point(s) at Hooters…………….

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “No doubt Bob Filner will NOT get the Point(s) at Hooters.”

        He’ll no doubt try to get it.

    • Teddi

      Going to Hooters tonight to give them my business !
      Great decision.

      • King Leer

        Love their wings. My 6 year-old grandson (before his uptight father nixed our visits) referred to them as, the “Tickle-Tickle Girls.”

    • 2ifbyT

      Wonder if they’ll do the same thing for Willie and his cigars…

    • mike_in_kosovo

      When you’ve lost Hooters…

      ….you’ve gone a bit *too* far with your dieting?


  • Maxx

    “Not worried,” said Mayor Bob. “If I want to grab a breast or thigh, there’s always the office, errr, I mean KFC.”

  • Matthew Koch

    Colossal boobs not welcome!!!!

    Oh wait, theyre talking about Filner! I thought they were talking about the employees!


  • WhoMeToo

    “We believe women should be treated with respect” -Hooters

    • Tre

      Almost, but not quite, as bad as Hugh Hefner saying it.

    • King Leer

      All women, not just mustachioed, pudgy, chinless, bitter gals with Womyns Studies credits (degree? Ha!) with a surplus of cats.

    • Richo

      As shocking as this might be to some, there is a difference in level of respect between a consenting adult showing her body (and other people enjoying it) versus harassing women

      • Blake Waymire

        Yep. If a woman wants to show off her body in a relatively tasteful way for others to enjoy, it’s fine by me. Hooters outfits are actually quite tasteful considering some of the other things you see women wearing. Not as tasteful or sexy as a plain white t-shirt, but still not bad.

    • John Thomas “Jack” Ward III

      Respect, plus a nice tip, for prompt service. Jawamax 8<{D}

  • MarcusFenix

    Because people go there for the food…pfft, yeah right.

    • Markward

      Actually, they do have good hot wings, and I was shocked to find it is true when I tried some that a roommate brought home.

      • Garrett Gripling

        Wait, they serve food?!

      • MarcusFenix

        I’ve had the wings before, they’re not bad…sometimes they slather on the sauce a bit thick, but i’ve had worse.

        But clearly…as Tre mentioned…..it’s the scenery. :)

        • John Thomas “Jack” Ward III

          I guess Filthner will have to make wings at home, like my Big Brother does…. BTW, anyone smell burning grease? XD Jawamax 8<{D}

    • Tre

      I went to a Hooters around here once and ordered a hamburger. It wasn’t bad, but I can tell people go there for the scenery.

      • King Leer

        Get the wings.

  • Tre

    Well DUH! Him in there where lots of pretty women are running around in tight shorts and shirts! He’d be like a small child turned loose in a candy store!

  • Pablo
    • Kimihiro Watanuki

      I’m hoping a lot of business shun him.

  • atx1

    wow, so now Hooters is teaming up with Glenn Beck

    • John Thomas “Jack” Ward III

      Politics DOES make strange bedfellows… Jawamax 8<{D}

  • NRPax

    “I’m still cleared to come in, right ladies?” -Bill Clinton.

    • TocksNedlog

      Well, THERE’S a visual that absolutely no one needed!

      • NRPax

        It seems to be my duty to provide someone with nightmare fuel.

  • TJ

    That is what is called guerrilla marketing. Get a message across without anyone knowing where the sign came from as if they knew the messenger was Glenn Beck they would not want anything to do with it and take Filner.

    • RLEE

      Ok I’ll speak real slow they sent for the sign from a Glenn Beck web site

      • TJ

        Yes but those that see it do not know that. If there was a logo in the corner they would go in and rip that sign down and protest Hooters for using a Beck made sign. Some dislike Beck more than Filner and would have dinner with Filner before they allow Beck in the same restaurant.

    • TocksNedlog

      Not quite getting how things work over here on the other side of the pond, are you?

    • Jill

      Why would that be, Trevor? Are you implying that the message is ill conceived and that, for some reason, one should allows take a stance opposing Beck?

      • TJ

        Some would rip that sign down and turn a blind eye to Filner and any crimes he has committed if then knew it came from Beck because they hate Beck more.

        guerrilla marketing does not have to always be for bad reasons. It is to get a message across at the local level with no direct control from the creator of that message.

        • MarcusFenix

          Sadly, this is correct. People get consumed more, at times, with the messenger than the message.

  • jacksonjay

    Do they serve Weiners?

    • WhoMeToo

      Every day.

  • Arnold Townsend

    Well, that’s it for Filner. When Hooters bans you, your political career is over. Dead and starting to smell over.

  • right_on

    So, Hooters Corporate is saying that the food is not the big draw? LOL

    Good for them: No shoes, no shirts, no class, no service!

  • Garrett Gripling

    Not that I needed more motivation, but Hooters definitely will get my business.

  • Richard Jefferies

    I find this hilarious in a sad sort of way. So Hooters, the restaurant chain that has traded on titillation for more than two decades is saying no to Filner, what, this is a family restaurant? Laughable. Hooters hasn’t gotten my business in a while, and this political stunt isn’t going to change that.

    • TocksNedlog

      Feeling a little sour today?

      • Richard Jefferies

        Not a bit, I’m just befuddled watching people fall all over themselves to praise Hooters, a restaurant one step below a strip club, that pretends to be a women’s empowerment center. Yes, they’ve done their level best to distance themselves, sans the uniforms, from the sexist past, but there was a time when Filner would have been their target demographic.

        • Jen

          Actually, Hooters are nowhere near the same class as a strip club. They’re clean, the women are wearing more clothes than most 15 year old girls on the street, the food is excellent and the atmosphere is fun without being frat-boy obnoxious. Go, don’t go…that’s up to you. But be honest about the place. It’s not as bad as you’re making it out to be.

          • odie11

            Aww c’mon. Where did you find the horse sh*t to shovel? Are you actually telling me that an organization that consciously sought a name to promote T& A and then build a restaurant around it to give it “legitimacy,” is not in the same class as a strip club? Why not? They are both promoting the same thing–T & A? In my opinion neither is “bad.” But they are certainly different sides of the same coin. The fact that one serves booze and the other food does not make it demonstratively different–get a clue. Only a woman can make talking out of both sides of her mouth sound reasonable–nice try. You must be a government employee.

          • MarcusFenix

            Not trying to split hairs, but last time I was at Hooters, I couldn’t give the waitress 50 bucks to grind on my crotch. Pretty big difference there.

            Selling T & A is one thing, but full nudity and lap dances can make these things very distinct. You’re once again trying to split hairs, but you’re using the wrong set of facts.

            Are strip clubs and Hooters alike? In the very broad stroke you’re using, they would have to be. Using your same stroke though, we could lump in the Sears Spring Fashion Catalog, because there are pretty women there modeling clothes, much less the section with bra sets, or even the swimsuit area for spring/summer wear. Next time a commercial for a movie comes on, we’re right back to it when a pretty woman shows up in some shorts and a t-shirt. You’re making it such a broad range, that most anything with a pretty woman and anything less than full Amish dress code could qualify.

            The distinction between the two is pretty clear cut, and I don’t think that people are talking out of both sides of their mouth when they articulate the difference.

          • Jen

            Well, had I known you were going to be debating like an ass I would have started out that way to begin with.

            First off, I can tell by your parting shot that the fact that you’re an obvious misogynist means you will never be able to separate an establishment like Hooters and a strip club. Women, clearly, are interchangeable in your mind.

            Secondly, Hooters and strip clubs are different in one major way. Hooters uses “T&A” (A phrase I despise) to draw in customers for their food, a strip club uses it to draw customers period. No other motivation. “Come for the boobs, stay for the boobs.”

            And by “boobs” I mean breasts, not you.

            And finally, for the record, we do agree on one thing. I don’t find strip clubs or Hooters bad, either. However you (legally) make your money, I am all for free enterprise and entrepreneurship.

        • MarcusFenix

          Well, lets be honest. Sex sells. Women running around in tight shorts and their chests popping out of their tshirts brings in business. They’ve got some ok food, but people go to watch the game at the bar and stare at some cleavage, mostly. But…it works.

          • Richard Jefferies

            Oh, I agree, and honestly I don’t have a problem with it. What I find funny is pretentious stance of Hooters, a restaurant that caters to the Filners of the world suddenly getting indignant and wanting the praise for their “anti-sexism”. I normally like Undercover Boss, but I found the CEO to be laughably naive, or at least obfuscatory for the camera, about the franchises’ image.

          • odie11

            Okay, but isn’t that objectifying women? You can’t have it both ways. You cannot accuse Filner of sexual harrassment in that he objectifies women and than praise an organization that makes its living by objectifying women.
            This obvious double standard is why so many of us cannot stand today’s new morality which is completely relative. Either you believe women showing T & A is good or you believe it is bad. To equivocate like so many male metrosexuals do is the reason we are having so many ugly gender politics. Male metros buy into feminist inspired victimology while those proponents of feminism sell the very thing they whine about. You can demonstrate that you have an ounce of testosterone by just saying no to both.

          • MarcusFenix

            You actually can have it both ways. One of those situations is not mutually contingent upon the other. Allow me to explain.

            Women working at Hooters and using their bodies to sell food and get tips is an objectification of women. But just like porn stars or models, it’s their own objectification. The morality of the situation, under that facet, is irrelevant. A woman takes her clothes off for Playboy, and she’s paid for it. A woman works at Hooters, knowing full well what the program is there, and shows up to work 5 days a week.


            Because she’s objectifying herself. She has no problem with it, and there’s a line around the proverbial block where attractive women use their bodies to sell things now, knowing full well that men are staring at their chests and rear. The internet is full of women who take pictures of themselves for personal gain and profit, and who want modeling agencies and professional outfits to see them. Whether it’s their own self image or a product, it’s their choice to use their physique for their own gain.

            On the other hand, Filner’s objectification of women didn’t stop with just internet girls. Women in their professional capacity around him, in a political arena, were not specifically using their bodies for that. Had they shown up to work in a bikini after their lastest boob job…maybe that would be valid. But that’s not the case.

            In basic terms…the first set of women are doing what they choose and are being paid. In Filner’s case, it was pure sexual harassment because he objectified women, regardless of how they presented themselves.

            I outright reject your notion of equivocation, based on this concept. A man can go to a strip bar, and pay money to watch a girl dance. Is he objectifying her? 99% likely. But she is there under her own volition, and with 100% certainly objectifying herself. She chooses to do so, in this situation, as a way to generate revenue. Both the man and the dancer, in this case, can choose to not partake in those activities. But there’s nothing that says on equal and legal terms, they have to stop. Now, if the same guy at the club puts his hands on one of the girls…the bouncer tosses him out, because that’s not part of the deal.

            Filner, on the other hand, groped and sexually harassed over a dozen women who neither wanted his advances, or to have him put hands on them.

            The two are just not alike.

          • odie11

            That is the most metrosexually effeminate thing I have ever heard of in my life. It is bad enough that you attempt to rationalize bad behavior, but you ad in sult to in jury by pretending this is somehow okay because “the woman is doing it of her own volition. Genius, that train has looong left the track. We have all kinds of scenarios in society in which we do not allow this kind of false rationalization. We do not allow it in drug usage, or suicide decisions or any other kind of decision making. Why should we allow it in this kind of scenario? The problem is that we DO allow it for women. That is the problem–and while I am not interested in in sulting you, you do sound just like a wo man in wanting it both ways. So if a fe male wants to objectify herself–that is okay–until of course she decides to stop objectifying herself–in which case it is not okay–or, she decides the person she is trying to objectify herself to is receiving the right “objectification transmission,” in which case she is happy, or, on the other hand, if she is objectifying, and someone other than the person she is attempting to reach tunes into her message–then it becomes sexual harrassment. And keep in mind, during all this objectification, she is whining that “people are objectifying her!!!!
            It’s bad enough when women do it, but when men enable them, then it becomes intolerable. There are numerous men charged with se x assault because they bought into your double standard and miscalculated. These are innocent people. I don’t want to live in your kind of world in which the ebbs and flows of a va gina is allowed to dictate my reality. And, if for some reason she is ticked off, she can change the definitions at will.
            Men like you are the reason this kind of misunderstanding is even taking place–and even more egregious, the fact that the courts seem inclined to go along with your bizarre schizo phrenic kind of thinking. You need to turn in your man card and move to the other side.

          • MarcusFenix

            Since you don’t want to be polite…

            Your rantings and ravings are about the most intellectual vapid, retarded, blindly ignorant on the thread, if not most of Twitchy. You really have no idea how many contradictions, fallacies, and blatant misstatements you’ve made, and yet you think you’re making a valid point. You’re not. The only bizarre, poorly worded, mentally unstable, morally unfounded, and schitzophrenic response here has been yours. Mine was well worded, polite, and structured to be easily interpreted. Whatever your problem is, you managed to not notice that and went straight to full retard. Never go full retard. Hell, you couldn’t stick to making comments about me with regard to whether I was a guy or not, so…immediately the rest of this crap becomes suspect.

            So, allow for me to dispel that pathetic illusion of your position being correct right here and right now, using your own argument. I’d be happy to dismantle this crap, one step at a time.

            First, you can keep your faux moral outrage to yourself. It doesn’t get you anywhere and makes you seem shrill and spastic, which follows the context of your posts. You’re all over the place, and cant consistently or coherently debate anything.

            Second, it’s hardly equivocation…but your repeated nonsense about strip clubs and Hooters being one and the same is nothing *but* equivocation. I pointed out that they had similar attributes with regards to using pretty girls to bring in business, but that were quite clearly different in terms of context, business model, what actually happens there, and so on. You do know what the word “equivocate” means, right? Do you need someone to use smaller words to show you that you’re doing the very same thing you’re claiming someone who isn’t has done previously? Maybe some finger puppets? Do you believe if you keep saying the same thing over and over, that magically you’ll be correct? Because you wont. You practice equivocation during the entirety of your postings, and yet you can’t even see it. Sad.

            Quote: “We have all kinds of scenarios in society in which we do not allow this
            kind of false rationalization. We do not allow it in drug usage, or
            suicide decisions”

            Yes, dipsh!t, but drugs -are- illegal. Working at hooters isn’t illegal. Do you see how stupid that is? As far as suicide, suicide isn’t illegal anymore either, and is not treated as a crime. There are four states currently that allow PAD (Physician Aid in Dying), which are Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Vermont. So apparently, YOUR train has already left the station, and you missed it by about a decade or more. Did you not know those things about suicide. or did 1982 call and ask you about your feelings on people who choose to end their own suffering by varying means?

            Quote: “The problem is that we DO allow it for women. That is the problem–and
            while I am not interested in in sulting you, you do sound just like a wo
            man in wanting it both ways.”

            That, along with whatever that paragraph or three of sewage about people wanting it one way or the other…was just incredibly sloppy, poorly worded, and borderline childish. Not to mention wrong in most places.

            You hit it right on the head with one point though….women ARE allowed to do those things. Whether you think it’s right or wrong is your personal moral decision, and absolutely f**king irrelevant with respect to the law, unless you’re the one making policy. Despite your (really hard to follow) insinuation that women are doing these horrible things to themselves, and that men are to blame…they both are to blame if you want to focus on who is doing what in the example. The woman objectifies herself for money. The man objectifies her and pays. Your moral outrage has no bearing. As a matter of law and social contract, you’re so far into the wrong that you couldn’t take a bus to get back into the realm of being right and make it by the end of the week. With the strip club example, the man is going there to look at a naked woman, get some lap dances, and go home. There’s nothing legal or proper if he decides to grab up on her and molest her past what the social contract, the law, and the policy of the club allows. Many clubs have a “hands off” policy…touching one of the dancers, at all and on any part of their body, is enough to get you thrown out if not arrested. The law, and common sense, disagree with your entire crappy assessment.

            Quote: “someone other than the person she is attempting to reach tunes into her
            message–then it becomes sexual harrassment. And keep in mind, during
            all this objectification, she is whining that “people are objectifying

            How effing stupid are you? Using our same club example…the woman doesn’t scream about being objectified while she’s having the man removed from the club for trying to grab her chest. Your entire rant there about that shows you clearly don’t even have a handle on what that situation would entail, much less understand why the guy would be thrown out or arrested as a result. When Filner decided he was going to grab women in various places, coherce them into spending time with him or asking for sexual favors…you think those women felt not only objectified (and rightly so) but they were proper to report it. But when a woman in a club does that, you make it sound as though she asked for it. That’s incredibly classy right there….how about blaming some rape victims for it, while you’re at it, because that’s the next “logical” step for you.

            Let’s make this easy, and i’ll use small words. Woman at club dancing is doing so legally. Man at club watching her is doing so legally.

            Man grabbing her boobs and putting his hands on her is sexual harrassment.

            Very cut and dry. Do you see how easy it is when you just look to the fact that one set of those actions is legal, where the other is not. If you’re afraid that men are being dragged into litigation over false claims…that’s how people are. The facts, however, exonerate people who fall into this catagory, more often than not. The fact you won’t want to “live in that kind of world” is another train you missed, sometime since the dawn of man, where people have presented false testimony against another to get what they want or just be vindictive. You won’t be able to catch that train. Those definitions, despite your statement, don’t change “at will”. The law is in place to deal with those situations. Should either of them be at the club, with consideration to moral ideals? You and I can say we believe they shouldn’t be, but that doesn’t make it *fact*. Should women objectify themselves? In a perfect world, they wouldn’t have to, and I’d be fine with that. But it’s not, and it’s also not my place to inflict my moral standards on others. Christians have the right to state their beliefs…but not to enforce it on others as if we’re superior in some sense. Pointing the way to better moral ideals is one thing…but forcing them at sword point isn’t the way.

            Quote: “Men like you are the reason this kind of misunderstanding is even taking
            place–and even more egregious, the fact that the courts seem inclined
            to go along with your bizarre schizo phrenic kind of thinking. You need
            to turn in your man card and move to the other side.”

            So far, the entire problem has been your superior sense of morality and the hubris involved in believing you’re correct while having zero grasp of the discussion or its finer points. It’s almost pathetic, and I -almost- feel bad for you. But, I don’t feel bad when I step on an ant, and this hasn’t been any different. Could have been more polite, but you kind of threw that out the door, and I personally don’t care about civility with you.

            “Men” like you (if you even are, but i’d use the term loosely) aren’t so much of a problem, as just a shrill voice of emotional refuse with no real factual base to support your view. You equivocate actions, then can’t understand why someone would point out that they are different by details. Until you can get that part of the discussion right, and rationalize it without acting like a little b!7ch, we have nothing left to say and I won’t bother responding unless you can get back to being civil and clear about your point.

            And I’ll keep my man card…because it’s clear you were never issued one and don’t even know what they look like.


  • Thomas, Snarkmaster General

    When Hooters is classier than you are, it’s time to pack it in.

  • tops116

    Guess that means more room for Carlos Danger and Bubba, huh?

    • liberalssuck


    • John W.

      Hooters doesn’t appeal to Carlos because the servers have to be over a certain age. And Bubba, as we have seen, isn’t very choosy when it comes to women. Anyone short of Helen Thomas will do.

  • Republicanvet


    • John Thomas “Jack” Ward III

      “HOOTERS!….Wipe that smile off your face!”
      “You’re blushing…”
      “I’m used to it…”
      #Unstoppable Jawamax 8<{D}

  • http://www.thereisagod.webs.com/ Derek Lockhart

    Okay, credit where it’s due and all that, yes, but honestly? To me, Hooters saying they won’t serve the pervo-mayor because they respect women would be like Playboy cancelling Filner’s subscription and saying the same thing. I find it hard to take anyone seriously on the subject of respecting women when their main advertising agent tends to be large breasts. Still, kudos for taking ANY stand at all, I still do believe in credit where it’s due.

  • radicallyalyssa

    Nothing to do with politics. Everything to do with harassment and sexual predators.

  • Bruce

    Please add a (D) after Filthy Finer in the heading.

  • rambler

    Don’t stop with Filner. Every elected official who ignores the restraints of the Constitution and votes to curb liberty and freedom should receive the same treatment. They feed off of their power to go where they want and do what they want while stomping all over the public in the process.

  • John Thomas “Jack” Ward III

    I’ve applied for jobs at HOOTER’S a couple of times (never ate or drank there, tho…) The ladies (not “Girls” or “Chicks”) at HOOTERS Deserve respect, while helping their customers have a good time. I’m sure Filthner (and anyone who still supports him) will want to file a Lawsuit against the Restaurant chain, but it’s their RIGHT to refuse service to perverts, and it’s no excuse for his lecherous behavior! Jawamax 8<{D}

  • odie11

    Okay…how many of you posting metrosexuals do NOT understand that this is a blatant marketing/advertising gimmick. As numerous people have mentioned, the target audience for Hooters is young and old Filners. I don’t have a problem with the company pandering to get free publicity. What I have a problem with is the disingenuous male effeminate tools that can not readily see thru this blatant ruse. If you cannot see what is clearly before your eyes, how are you going to make value judgments on policies that directly and indirectly affect your citizen rights?

    Americans have to be the most stupidly ignorant voters on the face of the earth. No one can be this painfully clueless. It is almost as if the entire country was in some form of mass induced cluelessness. The fact that so many cannot see the shameless self promotion of a company doing EXACTLY what it says it is not doing is the real problem. This lack of awareness is the fundamental problem with our politics and our society. The average american has been so anesthetized by television and mass media that they are literally comatose. Wake up!

  • JustLikeAnimals

    Note to Bob Filner: When your boorish behavior makes Hooters look like an women’s advocacy group, well, you gots problems.

  • Third News

    The party will not attract women with this self-delusion.

    Politically partisan blindness is why Filner kept his tongue and fingers in city hall.

  • Benjamin Dover

    Your steady beacon in the ever-shifting fog of illusions conjured up by today’s liberals and progressives: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0094KY878