Skip to comments.Denial ain't just a river in Egypt - Republican conservatives can't handle the truth about Romney
Posted on 04/27/2012 6:57:39 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
April 27, 2012
I deal on a regular daily basis with self-identified conservatives all across America who are addicted to the Republican Party. And when it comes to the impending nomination by their party of the most liberal governor in U.S. history, Mitt Romney, their reactions are overwhelmingly in line with the classic symptoms described below. We can't make them face reality, of course. All we can do is to keep pointing it out to them, in the sincere hope that they will recover in time to help save the country.
From Wikipedia :
Denial (also called abnegation) is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. The subject may use:
The concept of denial is particularly important to the study of addiction. The theory of denial was first researched seriously by Anna Freud. She classified denial as a mechanism of the immature mind, because it conflicts with the ability to learn from and cope with reality. Where denial occurs in mature minds, it is most often associated with death, dying and rape.
In this form of denial, someone avoids a fact by lying. This lying can take the form of an outright falsehood (commission), leaving out certain details to tailor a story (omission), or by falsely agreeing to something (assent, also referred to as "yessing" behavior). Someone who is in denial of fact is typically using lies to avoid facts they think may be painful to themselves or others.
This form of denial involves avoiding personal responsibility by:
Someone using denial of responsibility is usually attempting to avoid potential harm or pain by shifting attention away from themselves.
For example: Troy breaks up with his girlfriend because he is unable to control his anger, and then blames her for everything that ever happened.
Denial of impact involves a person's avoiding thinking about or understanding the harms of his or her behavior has caused to self or others, i.e. denial of the consequences. Doing this enables that person to avoid feeling a sense of guilt and it can prevent him or her from developing remorse or empathy for others. Denial of impact reduces or eliminates a sense of pain or harm from poor decisions.
This type of denial is best discussed by looking at the concept of state dependent learning. People using this type of denial will avoid pain and harm by stating they were in a different state of awareness (such as alcohol or drug intoxication or on occasion mental health related). This type of denial often overlaps with denial of responsibility.
Many who use this type of denial will say things such as, "it just happened". Denial of cycle is where a person avoids looking at their decisions leading up to an event or does not consider their pattern of decision making and how harmful behavior is repeated. The pain and harm being avoided by this type of denial is more of the effort needed to change the focus from a singular event to looking at preceding events. It can also serve as a way to blame or justify behavior (see above).
This can be a difficult concept for many people to identify with in themselves, but is a major barrier to changing hurtful behaviors. Denial of denial involves thoughts, actions and behaviors which bolster confidence that nothing needs to be changed in one's personal behavior. This form of denial typically overlaps with all of the other forms of denial, but involves more self-delusion. Denial at this level can have significant consequences both personally and at a societal level.
Harassment covers a wide range of offensive behaviour. It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset. In the legal sense, it is behaviour which is found threatening or disturbing.
DARVO is an acronym to describe a common strategy of abusers: Deny the abuse, then Attack the victim for attempting to make them accountable for their offense, thereby Reversing Victim and Offender.
Psychologist Jennifer Freyd writes:
...I have observed that actual abusers threaten, bully and make a nightmare for anyone who holds them accountable or asks them to change their abusive behavior. This attack, intended to chill and terrify, typically includes threats of law suits, overt and covert attacks on the whistle-blower's credibility, and so on. The attack will often take the form of focusing on ridiculing the person who attempts to hold the offender accountable. [...] [T]he offender rapidly creates the impression that the abuser is the wronged one, while the victim or concerned observer is the offender. Figure and ground are completely reversed. [...] The offender is on the offense and the person attempting to hold the offender accountable is put on the defense.
You Sir, belong in missionary work, not politics. I daresay everyone on this site, myself included, agrees with your principles. However, principles without a personality to attract those less well mentally endowed will get you precisely nowhere. Ask Steve Forbes.
Do you also propose an IQ test for voters?
Ask Tom Birmingham (former Democrat president of the MA senate) who HE believes was responsible for socialized medicine in Massachusetts. He will tell you it was the Democratic legislature. Birmingham doesn't want Romney getting credit for what he considers a marvelous accomplishment by the Democrats in MA.
Romney was a figurehead. The permanent fixtures at the state house (IOW the legislative ruling class that watches while governors come and go) will tell you that his main focus was running for president during the time he was governor.
Exactly. The idea that all we need is for society to totally collapse and then we can be assured that everyone will suddenly agree with us is to fly in the face of both recent history and the facts of the entire history of civilization.
We know we are at the tipping point where a majority or close to it pays no taxes and apparently believes in the Santa Claus theory of gov't goodies.
And we are supposed to trust that they will re-create the American Republic if we burn down the one we have?
I disagree, EV. Basic information about the candidate is a valid expectation.
What if, for example, you were accused of being a securities and exchange felon.
How would I determine the veracity of such a thing?
....yet this idea apparently is animating many Conservatives. "Let the guilt fall on Obma's head," they say, as they plan on staying home rather than vote for Romney or equivalent. This, when in many areas .... such as the Supreme Court .... we are one appointment away from the collapse of the Republic.
Hello, McFly! RomneyCare did go national. It’s called ObamaCare. You might not have heard. If you want to educate yourself as to what collectivist non-health care is going to do to this country just look at the UK’s NHS or the Canadian version. RomneyCare on a national level would be a disaster according to Romney? It’s been a disaster for the state of Massachusetts! Hello, McFly!
Have you been taking stupid pills or are you just dense due to your ignorance about Romney? Are you from Rio Linda by any chance?
I’m gonna tell you a secret. Massachusetts is one of the most Leftist states in the union. Have Jimmy Carter or Jerry Brown push for collectivised health care?
No. Just a constitutional test, and consistent accountability to the principles of our republic, for all leaders and candidates.
We're building a political culture of principle, as opposed to what the GOP has become, a culture of total compromise of principle.
Or, I could stop paying attention to what I know the Lord is telling me to do and take instruction from you.
Not going to happen.
We live in the age of the internet. You could verify something like that in about five seconds. So I don’t understand your point at all.
Again, am I speaking in a foreign language here? Is there a general problem with reading comprehension? I understand my choices. I have made mine.
Funny how we as conservatives love talking about God, but when it comes down to a hard, unpopular decision, suddenly standing with Him becomes “naive”, a “fantasy.” That’s very interesting to me.
You’re free to align yourself with an abortionist-homosexual lover. Don’t try to tell me I must,
I could not. I don’t even know anything about you except a name....and I don’t even know for a fact that that’s real.
What year were you born?
Which is your state of residence?
Are you married?
Which schools did you attend?
Where do you work?
Do you have military experience?
Are you a US citizen?
Are you a natural born citizen?
etc, etc, etc,
This stuff should be out there.
FWIW, Romney says he’s pro-life. Why do I not believe him?
I never thought I would see conservatives come to this. This primary season has been very illuminating, but not always in a good way.
Actually, believing that Islam is a peaceful religion, as he does, IS inviting them in.
Get rid of the Executive!
Uh; we sure are NOT doing THAT very well; are we!!!
Come on. I've made no secret of who I am in over twelve years of posting here. Most regulars know exactly who I am.
What year were you born?
1960. I turned 51 on my last birthday.
Which is your state of residence?
Are you married?
Yes. My wife is Siena.
Which schools did you attend?
Ralston, NE public schools.
Where do you work?
I'm the chairman of America's Party, and take in a tiny bit of consulting work to keep body and soul together.
Do you have military experience?
Are you a US citizen?
Are you a natural born citizen?
etc, etc, etc,
I'll answer any question you have, as time permits.
This stuff should be out there.
Well, that's why we have a campaign.
FWIW, Romney says hes pro-life. Why do I not believe him?
Because he's not. His own words, on his own website, as of TODAY, prove that he is a pro-choice democrat.
Can we get an AMEN??
Are you still killing your unborn?
No. And why would anyone be surprised when “pro-lifers” keep supporting politicians who have no intention of stopping the American holocaust?
You’re quite welcome, though I should thank you for the stand you take. I consider it part of my ongoing education.
No, not to my knowledge; it was the quoted part of a reply.
When the anti-mormon posters come in, I’m out.
Well it wasn't Texans. We were supposed to vote on Super Tuesday, but some Federal Court Shenanigans have delayed our primary until late May. I won't be voting for Romney, in the slim hope that we might get to a brokered convention. But I really would like to Follow The Money, on that court action.
>Funny how we as conservatives love talking about God, but when it comes down to a hard, unpopular decision, suddenly standing with Him becomes naive, a fantasy. Thats very interesting to me.
I notice this point reflected in “law” and, to be honest, it disturbs me. Hell, it doesn’t have to be Faith-based, just “unpopular.”
Something like, say, obeying the state constitution. I’ve lived in two states and both have clear, unambiguous language regarding firearms... which is then completely ignored at the statute level. (I’ve written about it, a bit.)
In terms of the spiritual, I think it is very telling. As states, and as the Union, we are not interested in truth and therefore logical consistency, at any level.
Absolutely, and thank you. Prior to the last Presidential election I recall hearing Freepers who were disgusted with Congressional Republican spending ("they came to Washington to do good and stayed to do well") saying that they wouldn't vote during the next election, and hoped a Democrat would become the next President "to teach those Republicans a lesson." They got their wish and we got Obama. But all that dissatisfaction resulted in the Tea Party. We took over the House and are poised to take the Senate as well. A Republican President, even one with many imperfections, would be infinitely better than a second Obama term. But instead of backing the current candidate, folks are fighting with each other and running off wildly in all directions. I can't see how that helps anyone.
“In his first term, Patrick oversaw the implementation of the state's 2006 health care reform program which had been enacted under Mitt Romney, increased funding to education and life sciences” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deval_Patrick. (Yes I'm using the evil wikipedia as a source. If the facts are wrong please refute them.)
Well not much difference there. Neither are opposed to socialized medicine, though Mitt thought of it first.
“His two legislative battles to implement casino gambling failed:”
That almost sounds like a conservative idea to fix the economy. I'm sure Mitt wouldn't like that.
“Some gay rights activists have criticized him for his tenure on the United Airlines (UAL) board. During this time, the company originally fought an ordinance requiring that it offer domestic partnership benefits but Patrick successfully encouraged UAL to offer such benefits to all employees, making it the first airline to do so”
Based on Mitt's court picks, I'm sure he approves of that.
“changing the state's customary car lease from a Ford Crown Victoria to a Cadillac”
We all know Mitt loves his Cadillacs.
I Don't know, looks like two sides of the same coin, except one has an R and the other a D behind the name. When your for socialism, gun control, gay marriage, and abortion, its hard to go farther to the left. New campaign strategy: Vote Mitt because he could be worse. After all, he's not Vlad the Impaler, Genghis Khan, or Hitler. Vote Mitt - he could always be worse.
Choose Goode, or choose evil.
Not a bad idea that. I believe Heinlein put forth that notion in one of his books. (He'd have the voting machine give you a quadratic equation to solve, which would weed out a whole bunch of people)
It would be Constitutional too. The constitution's protections of the right to vote only extend to denials based on race, color,previous condition of servitude, failure to pay a poll tax, or age for those 18 or older.
That said, I'd prefer the requirement be put into a Constitutional Amendment. Safer that way, from several angles.
Have to run out for a bit; will read when I get back.
Home Depot has good prices on bits.
In Nebraska, such language was added to the Constitution in the 1980s, by popular referendum. AFAIK, no court has stricken down any gun law based on that language.
All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof.
Pretty clear, yet the gun laws stand, although some have been changed by the legislature. Cities, Omaha in particular, still pass gun laws stricter than those of the state, and the courts yawn.
You’re just biased, Mr. Presidential candidate. :-P
Any man who tells you he’s not biased is a liar.
However, if your inference is that I’m biased against Mr. Goode simply because I’m running myself, I would say with a high level of confidence that I wouldn’t trust him even if he was the only choice being presented.
He voted for Nancy Pelosi to be Speaker of the House, did he not? So, he owns a part of everything she did in that high office. I mean, unless he has credibly repudiated everything he did as a Democrat congress-critter. Can you point me to some evidence of that?
One of the other questions I would have for him is how much of the Constitution Party’s Ron Paul-ish foreign policy he has adopted as his own.
By the way, I got the humor in your post, even if my last post didn’t show it. :-P
Yeah, I was worried you wouldn’t get the humor. From my observations of Goode (going back to the mid ‘90s when he was still in the VA State Senate), he was one who was trying to move the Democrat party away from moonbat territory (while a respectable task, one that was far too late) and remembered what it was like when the party still had actual Conservatives in it (and not what the media calls “Conservative Dems” today, which are merely Socialist). He always conducted himself in an above-board manner without the kind of typical deceit we see in so many leftists.
Now, to answer your question, as far as I know, he did vote for Pelosi when she was the candidate for Speaker as a member of the Minority Party (since she was in no danger at that point of becoming Speaker, I choose not to crucify Goode for such a vote — I would contrast that with ex-Congressman Gene Taylor of MS who voted against Pelosi when he was in the minority, but “proudly” cast a vote for her in January 2007 when it did matter, a kind of rank hypocrisy that thankfully contributed to his eventual defeat last year). His real courageous vote was for Clinton’s impeachment in 1998. By then it was apparent he had very little in common with his lifelong party and he switched a little over a year later (first to Independent, and then 2 1/2 years later to GOP). There was nothing off the top of my head that I found objectionable in his voting record from that period onward (if anything, getting unshackled from the Democrats allowed him to move fully rightward).
Add to that that he had the courage to speak out against Mohammadanism at a time when so many other Republicans would cower (and it quite possibly had some effect on losing reelection in 2008).
The sole reason, as you cited, is the Constitution Party’s unfortunate prior paleo/libertarian stance on foreign policy/defense, but I think with Goode’s nomination, it moves it away from that to a more reasonable and sensible stance.
Having some up close first-hand experience in dealing with the CP, I remain highly skeptical.
Will you vote for him? Would you vote for a more Conservative"Third Party Cndidate" candidate, or write one in, thereby effectively voting another term for Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. (or II)?
I do not support Romney. BUT, should he becomes the GOP candidate, I will vote for him. It is that simple to me. IMNSVHO, one should vote (a) to remove Obama, (b)vote the more constitutional of the two candidates, and (c) the most conservative possible members of Congress.
If we lived in a system in which there were 4 parties: say Far Left,Center Left, Center Right, Constitutional Conservative and a a Conservative candidate would take votes that would be matched by those the Far Left might take from the Center Left, then a Conservative Party makes sense; as one of 4, not one of 3.
Dammit Gato, don’t get us started on Heinlein, in whose hands this entire planet should have been placed ages ago.
Really, how many times is this red herring argument gonna be thrown out ?
I can handle the truth....I CAN NOT HANDLE A ANOTHER SINGLE DAY OF BAMEY......think about the Muslim brotherhood in the White House....just think about it...then decide which American...which true American...between bamey and Romney is going to be the more trustworthy patriot..
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."
"I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."
That's like asking which will be the more faithful husband, Bill Clinton or John Edwards.
I do respect your right to act as your conscience dictates. I am not telling you how to vote, I am trying to convince you and others of like mind that by not voting, you have also made a choice for President. (like in law, acts of commission and omission) Not voting is an act of omission that allows a far worse result to happen.
I am not aligning myself with anyone. As for me, I do not want Obama to remain in office. He is a Muslim, according to some people he is a homosexual (or bisexual), the biggest supporter of infanticide when he was health/welfare chairman in the Illinois legislature, a socialist/communist, probably an illegal alien, a usurper, not a natural born citizen so not eligible to be President, and corrupt. As far as I know, Romney is none of these things (except some would say not a Christian). For me, not voting for Romney is the exactly the same as casting a vote for Obama. Therefore, I will vote for Romney, who BTW was my absolute last choice out of the field of Republicans.
When do we become part of the world instead of just in the world? Each Christian has to answer that for himself. Maybe Romney is just further judgment on our nation from God which we mightily deserve IMHO.
Enjoy your one sided argument. Since name calling is all you’ve got, I’ll move on.
Perhaps in this context, denial is in the eye of the beholder. I see you “denying as a fact something that is too uncomfortable to accept.” Maybe I’m wrong on some of these:
One fact, 1) the next president will either be Obama or Romney. 2) you will not have one million or more supporters in place by this summer who will each drag fifty, or a hundred, or more people to the polls with them. 3) you will not win a single electoral vote.
Perhaps I’m wrong here and you do don’t deny one or more of the facts above. If so, please correct.