I have sympathy for the abstract causes being protested, which appear to be twofold — excessive federal control of land in western states, and excessive legal penalties for anyone who dares to oppose the state.
One would have thought that Ted Cruz would naturally support anyone who was protesting those two trends. He is on record as holding similar views. So he has chosen to take a different stand in order to appear fully committed to the rule of law.
At some point the rule of law becomes the drool of law. These protesting citizens are not taking violent or excessive action. They are holding a little-used (in winter at any rate) wildlife refuge in symbolic protest. At this point their protest is reasonable. It’s not like they are blocking a busy highway into a national park.
However, the best outcome here would be for the federal government to realize that their prosecution of the Oregon ranchers (who seem ambivalent about the support of the protest in any case) is vindictive and excessive, a violation of the law much greater than whatever the ranchers may or may not have done in the first place.
That’s the approach Ted Cruz should take here, to say that he would call off the hounds and negotiate a reasonable settlement with the ranchers, while doing the other good thing he is already committed to doing, reducing the land ownings and powers of the BLM.
They have been quite clear: the Bundys do not speak for them, they reject the solution the Bundys propose, and they want nothing to do with the Bundys.
The Bundys are in this solely for their own aggrandizement, and what they are doing is self-serving.