#speakerryan

I had hopes for Speaker Ryan when during the Presidential campaign he said, in conjunction with the fracas about Trump not repudiating David Duke:

“This party does not prey on people’s prejudices. We appeal to their highest ideals.”

Mr Speaker, it's time to stand by those words and not be the spineless eunuch that Trump wants you to be.

Trump's comments about "shithole" countries could not be more blatantly racist. There is no denying that he does not want the people from Haiti or African nations here. To underscore his intent, he said he wanted Norwegians to immigrate here instead. I love Scandinavia and Scandinavians but that is one of the whitest populations in the world, making Trumps racist intent very black and white.

@SpeakerRyan did something quite unusual for a politician – he admitted his past views were wrong! This is a sign of true, honest leadership – something almost non-existent in Washington today. Here’s what he said:

“There was a time when I would talk about a difference between ‘makers’ and ‘takers’ in our country, referring to people who accepted government benefits. But as I spent more time listening, and really learning the root causes of poverty, I realized I was wrong. ‘Takers’ wasn’t how to refer to a single mom stuck in a poverty trap, just trying to take care of her family. … I was callous and I oversimplified and castigated people with a broad brush. There is a lot of that happening in America today.”

He also said, in conjunction with the fracas about Trump not repudiating David Duke:

“This party does not prey on people’s prejudices. We appeal to their highest ideals.”?

Ok, I’m confused. How can these two statements be reconciled? Mr Speaker, I need you to answer some questions.

* Was implicitly saying that some people (the “makers”) are better than others (the “takers”) truly appealing to “their highest ideals”?

* Would you agree, in hindsight, that your words were hateful? Deliberately or not, and irrespective of whatever intentions you held in your heart, how is it not hateful to, by your own admission, label people looking to provide for their families as “takers”?

* Wasn’t it obvious at the time that your views could reasonably and legitimately be seen as hateful? Was this appealing to our highest ideals? Or was it pandering for votes?

* Isn’t painting swaths of the population with a broad brush pre-judging them? Didn’t you, by your own admission, prey on people’s prejudices?

* Given the disproportionate numbers of minorities who receive government assistance, can you honestly state that the framing of “makers” vs “takers” wasn’t racially tinged?

* Can you truly deny that you were ignorant of the obvious fact that your views on “makers” and “takers” pandered to bigots, who equate “makers” with “white” and “takers” with any minority group?

* When the President is a black man or woman, it will undoubtedly be the case that racists make their home in the opposing party. Hasn’t the GOP has turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the growing number of racists within its ranks?

* Hasn’t the GOP denied the upswell of racist attitudes and actions within the country as a whole and within its own ranks in order to gain votes? Hasn’t your party lost its moral mooring by doing so?

* When the Tea Party activists chanted “Take back our country” while waving their birth certificates, weren’t they explicitly saying that the man in the Oval Office – more appropriately, the black man in the Oval Office – was not legitimately the President? What was your response? Silence? Telling the voters to decide on the place of Obama’s birth for themselves? Isn’t this silently embracing racist and hateful sentiments in order to not alienate people who vote for you and your party?

* Have you heard any outcry from those same activists about Ted Cruz? He actually, factually was born outside of the United States, yet no one in the Tea Party is claiming he is ineligible to be President. What is the reason for the difference? Do you deny it is the individuals’ race?