Republican friendships shatter over Trump

[mystery-ak]

 By Jonathan Swan - 09/19/16 06:00 AM EDT

A few months ago, Matt Schlapp, the former White House political director under president George W. Bush, walked into a cocktail party and tried to join a conversation with Republican consultants he has known for years.

“The conversation quickly ended,” Schlapp, the chairman of the nation’s oldest conservative grassroots organization, told The Hill in a recent interview. “Everyone looked down at their expensive loafers.”

“I hadn’t had that happen to me in a professional setting before,” he added. “It’s one of those moments when you wonder, ‘hey, do I have something on my face?’”

Schlapp’s decision to support Donald Trump for president has cost him friends in Washington’s elite Republican circles. Invitations he would normally receive no longer arrive. The vibe he says he’s getting is: “You’re out of the club.”

more
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/296331-republican-friendships-shatter-over-trump

[Frank Cannon]

The vibe he says he’s getting is: “You’re out of the club.”

This is such a sad story it brought me to tears. These poor elitist beltway lizards are not getting invites to cocktail parties anymore? Where is the justice?

[jmyrlefuller]

This article is so one-sided that it almost makes me sympathetic to the Trump caucus. Almost.

Then I remember how the Trump caucus acts here and I can suspect why they're losing friends.

[Cripplecreek]

This article is so one-sided that it almost makes me sympathetic to the Trump caucus. Almost.

Then I remember how the Trump caucus acts here and I can suspect why they're losing friends.

Politics breaking friendships is hardly new.

[Night Hides Not]

[TomSea]

"Never Romney, Never Trump", hmm, but maybe supporting a Senator whose accomplishments are minimal.

[sinkspur]

One pays a price when one compromises on principle.

Political expediency is cowardice.  And political expediency in service of a man who doesn't represent a single thing Republicans have stood for is reprehensible.

[skeeter]

This article is so one-sided that it almost makes me sympathetic to the Trump caucus. Almost.

Then I remember how the Trump caucus acts here and I can suspect why they're losing friends.

Any 'fallout' Trump supporters receive is a singular result of their candidate acting like a greasy richard.

The fact that many emulated him also is a factor.

If he'd campaigned like a decent human being the lunch invites would still be there.

[Night Hides Not]

"Never Romney, Never Trump", hmm, but maybe supporting a Senator whose accomplishments are minimal.

Given the fact that Ted's tenure in the Senate has been during a Democrat president, what should he have accomplished that would satisfy you?

[Cripplecreek]

Given the fact that Ted's tenure in the Senate has been during a Democrat president, what should he have accomplished that would satisfy you?

Considering what passes for success in the senate these days, its hardly a good measuring stick.

However off the top of my head, Ted Cruz did cosponsor a bill with Chuck Schumer of all people that bars known terrorists from entering the USA as UN diplomats. And yes, Obama did sign it into law.

What Ted Cruz didn't do was rent NY property to Muammar Qadaffi and then provide multiple conflicting explanations when people became outraged about it.

[HoustonSam]

Given the fact that Ted's tenure in the Senate has been during a Democrat president, what should he have accomplished that would satisfy you?

And not only a Democrat president, but Republican Senate leadership that was regularly, and deservedly, excoriated for its lack of principle and refusal effectively to resist Obama's agenda - *until* it became expedient to attack Cruz.  Then, suddenly, the only guy who was willing literally to stand up against Obamacare and use whatever power his office provided, is derided as "ineffective".

It is amazing that some in the pro-Trump camp continue to believe that maintaining a jihad against Cruz is worthwhile effort when Hillary is actually the opposing candidate.  Meanwhile Ted has continued his practice of speaking not a single word against the man who lied about him and insulted his family, in order to accomplish the thing that Trump himself should be doing - building party unity.

[TomSea]

Given the fact that Ted's tenure in the Senate has been during a Democrat president, what should he have accomplished that would satisfy you?

The point is how much better are the records of accomplishments are that the governors who have run, they've actually accomplished things and they have actually had to lead. It be Pence, Perry, Walker, Kasich and so on.

[skeeter]

And not only a Democrat president, but Republican Senate leadership that was regularly, and deservedly, excoriated for its lack of principle and refusal effectively to resist Obama's agenda - *until* it became expedient to attack Cruz.  Then, suddenly, the only guy who was willing literally to stand up against Obamacare and use whatever power his office provided, is derided as "ineffective".

This particular Trumpkin schizophrenia has had me scratching my head for months - is the congress a bunch of gutless valueless self-serving money grubbing poltroons or are they the world's most deliberative body effectively doing the good business of the people?

Your answer depends upon your personal feelings for Ted Cruz.

[TomSea]

I voted for Cruz in the primary, daily in polls for Cruz online and never for Trump in the primaries. But I'm not going to be a cult-follower of a Senator whose accomplishments are minimal compared to the Governors, so were Rubio's and Paul's, they are good men. I'm not going to be a cult-follower and at least, Rubio and Paul did not run dirty campaigns, Rubio and Paul did not appear at a rally with Trump, Rubio and Paul did not have an alliance in fact, with Trump.

No, but now, everything is different. We get it.

[Cripplecreek]

And not only a Democrat president, but Republican Senate leadership that was regularly, and deservedly, excoriated for its lack of principle and refusal effectively to resist Obama's agenda - *until* it became expedient to attack Cruz.  Then, suddenly, the only guy who was willing literally to stand up against Obamacare and use whatever power his office provided, is derided as "ineffective".

It is amazing that some in the pro-Trump camp continue to believe that maintaining a jihad against Cruz is worthwhile effort when Hillary is actually the opposing candidate.  Meanwhile Ted has continued his practice of speaking not a single word against the man who lied about him and insulted his family, in order to accomplish the thing that Trump himself should be doing - building party unity.

My congressman's freshman term was in Nancy Pelosi's house of representatives. Pelosi didn't allow freshman republican bills to come to the floor for votes. 2 years later the democrat ran against my congressman with the fact that he didn't sponsor or introduce any bills and just voted the party line.

[HoustonSam]

This particular Trumpkin schizophrenia has had me scratching my head for months - is the congress a bunch of gutless valueless self-serving money grubbing poltroons or are they the world's most deliberative body effectively doing the good business of the people?

Your answer depends upon your personal feelings for Ted Cruz.

And those personal feelings for Ted Cruz seem to depend, in turn, on whether or not one supports Trump.

I long identified myself with the Republicans because I felt that they managed a more principle-centered approach to politics, and *usually* advocated principles I believed.  Unfortunately that is no longer the case.  The anti-Trump camp here argues frequently that there is essentially no difference between Trump and Hillary; the pro-Trump camp demonstrates that there is essentially no longer any difference between Republicans and Democrats, even as they major in their only remaining argument - "he's not Hillary."

[Smokin Joe]

This article is so one-sided that it almost makes me sympathetic to the Trump caucus. Almost.

Then I remember how the Trump caucus acts here and I can suspect why they're losing friends.

There is something about having to cover your drink to keep the flying spittle out that disinclines one toward inviting that person next time...

[TomSea]

No problem being buddy, buddy before.

[Night Hides Not]

I voted for Cruz in the primary, daily in polls for Cruz online and never for Trump in the primaries. But I'm not going to be a cult-follower of a Senator whose accomplishments are minimal compared to the Governors, so were Rubio's and Paul's, they are good men. I'm not going to be a cult-follower and at least, Rubio and Paul did not run dirty campaigns, Rubio and Paul did not appear at a rally with Trump, Rubio and Paul did not have an alliance in fact, with Trump.

No, but now, everything is different. We get it.

As opposed to the "cult followers" of Trump, a man whose prevarications and inconsistencies in his positions are well documented?

I get it...everything is different.

[Longmire]

I wish Schlaap would have named names, but it seems he's too much of a gentleman.

The notion that the chairman of the nations oldest conservative grassroots organization needs validation on the DC cocktail circuit is absurd.

[skeeter]

I voted for Cruz in the primary, daily in polls for Cruz online and never for Trump in the primaries. But I'm not going to be a cult-follower of a Senator whose accomplishments are minimal compared to the Governors, so were Rubio's and Paul's, they are good men. I'm not going to be a cult-follower and at least, Rubio and Paul did not run dirty campaigns, Rubio and Paul did not appear at a rally with Trump, Rubio and Paul did not have an alliance in fact, with Trump.

No, but now, everything is different. We get it.

Its odd, but when you say 'I supported that dirty-campaigning, cheating, ineffective senator Ted Cruz in the primary' somehow I remain unconvinced.

[HoustonSam]

I voted for Cruz in the primary, daily in polls for Cruz online and never for Trump in the primaries. But I'm not going to be a cult-follower of a Senator whose accomplishments are minimal compared to the Governors, so were Rubio's and Paul's, they are good men. I'm not going to be a cult-follower and at least, Rubio and Paul did not run dirty campaigns, Rubio and Paul did not appear at a rally with Trump, Rubio and Paul did not have an alliance in fact, with Trump.

No, but now, everything is different. We get it.

So you voted for and supported a man who had no accomplishments and who ran a dirty campaign, and now you argue that those are reasons to denigrate him, while supporting another man about whom the same arguments could be made in much more detail?  Do you recognize how dissonant your cognition seems to many of us, and how little intellectual credibility you have?

You would be far better off simply supporting Trump, rather than continuing your anti-Cruz vendetta.  If you truly believe that Trump is better for the country than Hillary and you want to support him, more power to you.  There are others on this board who make that argument in a compelling manner without believing they need to run down a man who is no longer even in the race.  If the anti-Trump camp discourages you then counter with a credible pro-Trump position.  Attacking Cruz does nothing for your position and simply marginalizes you, and Trump, even further among those who don't support him.

[Smokin Joe]

The point is how much better are the records of accomplishments are that the governors who have run, they've actually accomplished things and they have actually had to lead. It be Pence, Perry, Walker, Kasich and so on.

Those governors have 100% of the power of their office. A senator has 1% of the power of the US Senate. What has Trump accomplished?

[Smokin Joe]

No problem being buddy, buddy before.

Before DT started calling him a liar while lying about him, attacking his integrity, his marriage, his wife, his father? That just might have put a damper on any camaraderie, ya think?

[Longmire]

Its odd, but when you say 'I supported that dirty-campaigning, cheating, ineffective senator Ted Cruz in the primary' somehow I remain unconvinced.

@skeeter What's odd is that the word "cheating" doesn't appear in the comment you quoted, but you inserted it anyway.

Freudian slip?