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.
>>Sarah Palin working with secret forces in the Newt camp will force a brokered convention!<<
Is that true? If this is true I feel much better.
You’ve really inspired me. I think I’ll run for President, myself, under the banner of the “Not A Snowball’s Chance in H*ll” party.
My donation website will be up shortly.
I hear ya. But in this case what was there was sufficient to make the point.
The two statements are contradictory in this context.
You lied. Me pointing this out is not calling you a name, it is just me stating the truth.
You do not believe that Mitt Romney is more liberal than Deval Patrick. That is why you won’t explicitly say that you do believe this.
Instead all you do is play dishonest word games.
People on this thread have wondered why conservatives don’t just form a third party, and why existing third party candidates are all such weirdos. You are an excellent object lesson in the fallen nature of humankind and the difficulty of creating honorable political movements.
Through this thread you have made Mitt Romney look better.
You aren’t even going to win the vote in your own bathtub.
My campaign doesn't take donations though. Neither does our national party, nor do our state parties. Instead, we urge folks to expend their resources where 100% of it goes directly to the real need.
I think you’ve lost the argument. I’ll try not to take your insults personally though. You’re going through a process.
It is not true. It is just someone's dream.
Running for President is very difficult, time-consuming, expensive, and it takes a lot of talented people working together.
Newt and Sarah simply can't do it this year. Newt tried and it didn't work out for him. Sarah chose not to try. There is now no time, talent, or money available to them to run for President.
The primaries are essentially over. The nominees will be Obama and Romney and a handful of people who will win nothing.
Who voted for this putz? If the “conservative” vote is rigged to this extent all over the country - or worse: that “conservatives” would actually vote in such a liberal - we’re finished.
(1) You seem to overlook the shenanigans of Obamination in appointing czars, issuing Exec Orders left and right and basically ignoring BOTH the Constitution AND Congress.
(2) If re-elected, He will screw the US Supreme Court for the rest of our lives and most of our kids’ lives, issue Allah only knows what new pile of exec orders, continue to trash the fabric of this once great nation, etc, etc, etc.
(3) What SIGNIFICANT action have you seen from ANY of the last round of tea party supported bozos that got elected, other than the occasional NO vote on some stupid piece of legislation. The utter and absolute corruption so rampant in DC quite simply infects EVERYONE who is part of that monstrosity called the US Federal Government. With recognition of Edmund Burke’s prophetic principal about the relationship of power and corruption, may I reword it to fit what we have seen in these latter days of the USA:
Power corrupts and ANY SIGNIFICANT amount of power will begin the corruption process, usually not reversible, of most people today beyond any hope of reversal or redemption.
(Just review in your own mind for a few moments, the behavior of any member of the “public service” sector, from local and county through state and up to federal “service”, and count up any SIGNIFICANT players who have NOT been corrupted.)
(4) The ONLY thing of ANY significance about the ‘12 election is to defeat OB or, better yet get him declared ineligible before the election.
(5) And, BTW, OB has set such a horrendous pile of steaming precedents, that I seriously doubt ANY future POTUS will be morally clean enough to resist taking advantage of them, with the possible exception of Sarah Palin.
Please riddle me this, cowboy:
Who is more liberal? Mitt Romney or Deval Patrick?
I don’t like it in Realville.
I’m in MI so my primary is over. I think I’ll go onto Pinterest.
Part of me wishes I could be in denial at times. Being a cynic isn't always fun. But then I have to admit, I do enjoying spotting the flaws in my and others positions.
Good question. Must be folks who decide what to do based on what they see and hear on television.
May I quote you?
That’s what I’ve been trying to say but couldn’t find the words.
No third-party Presidential candidate has shown the power needed to win the Electoral College vote. Also, my State doesn't allow voting for write-in candidates.
My concern is a simple one: the President of the United States is first and foremost an executive, who is supposed to administrate the laws passed by Congress as interpreted by the Courts. The problem is our existing Chief Executive doesn't like that -- forgetting he is no longer a Senator -- and tries to write regulations (with the force of law) more to his liking. I didn't like that with Bush, and I like it even less with Obama. Yes, the President has veto power over law, a veto that can be overridden by Congress. I don't know how Congress can provide checks and balance against Executive Orders -- I don't see that in the Constitution.
So for me, it's rock-and-hard-place time.
Obama has been President for three years, yet I've not seen any original written articles or work product from him from before he was President. (What work product? Nothing significant from the Illinois legislature, and damn little from his stint in the U.S Senate. And nothing from his college days.) He remains a cipher.
I've not yet started a publications search on Mitt, so I don't know if he is as secretive -- but there is his record as Governor, which means there will be work product to read and analyze.
I prefer facts to crickets, which means that, absent a document dump from Obama, my "choice" is clear.
I just want some assurance that we aren't jumping from the frying pan into the fire...
Anyone that thinks Romney is a conservative isn’t one either.
I will say this: I thought I was pro-life until I saw your posts. You made a fundamental shift in my belief on this vital issue and for that I thank you.
I also trust you are who you say you are.
You are looking through such a narrowed field of vision -- narrowed by pure fear and panic -- that you are only thinking of this election in terms of Obama, nothing else. As would be true in any field, restricting your perception to such a tiny context makes you vulnterable to BIG miscalculations.
Were not in denial so much as we are realists... Elections have always been about selecting the lesser of two evils...Ill take my chances on the new guy.
And those of us who have done our due diligence in checking Romney's documented record are also realists in that we recognize that he is fully as evil, intentional or not, as Obama on EVERY MAJOR ISSUE: Global warming, nationalized health care, abortion, activist judges, and the homosexual agenda. You pretend that there is a "lesser evil" in the equation; we TRUE realists understand the fallacy of such thinking in the case of Romney.
And those of you that see the light and decide that Romney is just not your guy, can vote for whom?
If it is O vs R in the general, I will be remembering, as should you, what happened to Clinton when he won with a wimpy plurality of 43% -- a full 57% of Americans had voted against him, and it weakened him politically so much that in the mid terms, he got his ass whooped by the Republican Revolution. I am mindful -- and you should be, too -- that when the final tally reveals that the majority of Americans voted against the victor, it hurts the victor politically, makes him weak, and empowers his opposition both in his own party and in the other party.
THEREFORE, I will vote third party for the express purpose of using my vote to make sure whichever disgusting socialist statist wins, Obama or Romney, has the slimmest, most devastating plurality possible. At this point, the thing that would give us the BEST chance of salvaging American freedom would be for Obama to win on a 34% plurality, with 66% of American voters on record as voting against him; it would mean that conservatives won a major battle in recovering the Republican party, it would mean Congress would go hard right in the mid-terms, and it would mean Obama's agenda would be very nearly dead in the water.
You've restricted your thinking to worst-case Obama scenarios. Fine -- now switch gears and start thinking AS A REALIST about what would really happen if, God forbid, Romney won. First, however, you have to acknowledge his documented record.
Romney would be MUCH more damaging to conservatism, and therefore to America, than Obama. I'm voting third party to influence the plurality, but I'll be praying Romney loses. Romney is BAD NEWS for everybody.
Yeah, well, I understand. I’m also no fan of Freud. But the facts about the process we call “denial” are pretty hard to deny.
I know mitt romney... I know exactly what he is... I know exactly who he is and what it is that he believes... and all of this together is why I will NEVER VOTE FOR THAT POS!
>>Romney would be MUCH more damaging to conservatism, and therefore to America, than Obama<<
Without an American System of Government, there ARE NO conservatives.
Unless your idea of Conservatism is Sharia. Because that’s where we are headed under Obama.
>>And those of us who have done our due diligence in checking Romney’s documented record are also realists in that we recognize that he is fully as evil, intentional or not, as Obama on EVERY MAJOR ISSUE: <<
Can you please point out which communists Mitt appointed to his cabinet? How many radical Islamics he put into positions of advising law enforcement?
Any Van Jones or Mohamed Elibiary types in the government of MA?
It’s either vote for a hardcore Leftist or for a hardcore Leftist and both will continue to take us up the river of collectivism.
Think I’ll write in Sarah.
EV, those are all good questions at #33, and since you’ve been doing this for some time now, you really should have a page up that lists all of that information.
It’s really hard to take your efforts seriously when that information isn’t already available.
What date certain do you expect page(s) up to give all your background data and information that relevant to any candidate running for office.
There really isn’t such a thing as an anonymous run for the presidency.
Let’s cut through all the chit.
Romney is a gun-grabbing, baby-killing, big government statist, liberal fellow-traveler, and so is anyone who supports him and urges others to support him.
There it is, like it or not.
If you’re looking for the usual credentials, I’m not your guy.
Bearing in mind that it is the folks with the usual credentials who have gotten us in the mess we’re in.
I’m thinking you for one are NOT in denial. :-)
Matthew 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Obama and Romney are just men. When we violate God's law, we have someone much more important to worry about.
Here’s the thing. Personally, I’m not evangelizing or trying to convince anyone not to vote for Romney. I know what I have to do, and I can explain my reasons. However, I do think it’s important folks know what they are voting for, and that’s all I’ve been doing——here, and IRL. On this forum, though, when people start getting into denial about Willard or hitting me for my decision, I hit back.
I’m as scared of another 4 years of Obama as anyone else. I am absolutely furious that the GOP-e, and the fools who voted for Romney in the primaries, have made it impossible for me to vote against him. And I’ve wavered. Back when Obama was caught promising the Russian guy “flexibility”, I wondered if I needed to vote for Romney despite what I knew. So I prayed, told God I was confused and needed direction, and I got my confirmation.....almost immediately afterwards.
For me, as a Christian, I can’t vote for a man who enabled abortion in MA (still going on today) and who cuddles up to sodomites. Romney’s problems there-—and yes, his Mormonism, too-—are insurmountable for me. If I pull the lever for him, I will have to stand before Jesus and tell him, well, Lord, I know you hate abortion and sexual perversion, but I thought you’d make an exception because Obama was in office. I’m not a perfect Christian by ANY means, but I just can’t align myself with Romney. My country is very important to me, but God MUST come first.
We can survive a wicked man in public office. But we cannot survive an electorate that has abandoned God, self-evident truth, and the moral principles upon which this free republic, and our claim to liberty, rest.
For quite awhile of late my tagline has been: "You can be a Romney Republican or you can be a conservative. But you can't be both. Pick one."
That is perhaps the best post anyone has made to me on FR in the twelve years I have been here. Thank you!
Why, when they have spent their time equating "Republican" with "Conservative", and denigrating the more Constitutionally based stances of third parties on individual issues as part of the denigration of "those wackadoodles"?
Now, to admit they were wrong, not just about some of the wackadoodles' positions, but defending the GOP like a battered spouse, is a bit too much for their egos to stand.
...and why existing third party candidates are all such weirdos.
When a group is constantly and vocally portrayed as being composed of a certain element of society, the members of that social element will tend to concentrate there and seek approval from others of like mind, whether the portrayal was accurate or not. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.
There too lies a huge obstacle to forming a third party; overcoming the stigma which has been placed on anything which might disturb the status quo, by both Parties.
I, too, don’t think “usual credentials” are the only credentials.
What I want to see ARE the credentials whatever they might be.
Then I’ll be the one to make up my mind for me.
But, to expect me to make a blind decision is unreasonable.
So, put your credentials, your background, qualifications, experience, etc., whatever it might be, in the public domain. Otherwise, the request is for people to make a decision undergirded by zero information.
You and I both know that such a thing will not fly.
If staying at home means that O will make it back in, how many babies will be killed?
They are pushing for death of those already born. How many will be condemned with your lack of action?
How many will be killed if, God forbid, one of our conservative Supreme Court justices need to be replaced? When a baby killing lib tilts the court, will you be able to say, “Oh well, I didn’t vote for him.”? That’s more than four years and babies will be killed for all time. We can’t go back. No matter how we vote after that, the courts will overrule it.
Lord love you if you can. I can’t.
It’s time to get over our fury at the stupid GOP. Because the GOP didn’t really give us this choice. The people did.
So.... Jesus wants you to waste your vote?
My God gave me brains to choose. He also knows enough to understand that we have to choose the “less-than-ideal” at times to prevent greater evil.
You are voting for the best person to hold an office, not for a person whose sins you have to bear.
I’m sorry, but that is just not a clear thinking strategy. Obama is far too dangerous as a sitting President in he last term with nothing to lose, for us to discard a chance to vote against him for the sake of sending a message somewhere.
However, I did enjoy a decade of close association with someone who was a high-level member of the Reagan Peace Through Strength team that ultimately brought down the Soviet Union, Dr. Alan Keyes. He taught me a lot in this area particularly.
In any case, my fundamental views concerning foreign policy and national defense are stated in the America's Party Platform.
Some excerpts from that document:
"We believe in a supremely strong, prepared, and well-equipped civilian-controlled United States military, and a bold, visionary and intelligent program of principled constructive engagement with the rest of the world. For us, "peace through strength" is not a mere slogan. It is the means of survival for our country in a very dangerous and often hostile world. Our friendship should be a sought-after possession of all men and women of good will everywhere in the world. Our enmity should be something that all rightfully fear." "As Ronald Reagan opposed and defeated the designs and desire of the Soviet Union to dominate the world and place it under the tyranny of their Evil Empire, we stand unalterably opposed to all who approve of, plan or commit terrorist acts. Since the first principle of America is the protection of innocent human life, any who would use acts of terrorism targeted at innocent civilians to forward their political, ideological or religious aims incur our effective and determined enmity." "We completely oppose any action that surrenders the moral, political or economic sovereignty of the United States and its people, and demand the immediate restoration of that sovereignty wherever it has been eroded." "We demand the immediate securing and continuous vigilant maintenance of our sovereign territory and borders. We oppose any private or governmental action that rewards illegal entry into the United States in any way, and demand speedy and full enforcement of our laws concerning all such activities."
"The right of self-preservation and self-protection is inherent in all persons, communities and societies, which is why we fiercely defend the indispensable provisions of our Second Amendment. Liberty cannot be protected if the people have been stripped of the physical means of doing so."
"We believe in a supremely strong, prepared, and well-equipped civilian-controlled United States military, and a bold, visionary and intelligent program of principled constructive engagement with the rest of the world. For us, "peace through strength" is not a mere slogan. It is the means of survival for our country in a very dangerous and often hostile world. Our friendship should be a sought-after possession of all men and women of good will everywhere in the world. Our enmity should be something that all rightfully fear."
"As Ronald Reagan opposed and defeated the designs and desire of the Soviet Union to dominate the world and place it under the tyranny of their Evil Empire, we stand unalterably opposed to all who approve of, plan or commit terrorist acts. Since the first principle of America is the protection of innocent human life, any who would use acts of terrorism targeted at innocent civilians to forward their political, ideological or religious aims incur our effective and determined enmity."
"We completely oppose any action that surrenders the moral, political or economic sovereignty of the United States and its people, and demand the immediate restoration of that sovereignty wherever it has been eroded."
"We demand the immediate securing and continuous vigilant maintenance of our sovereign territory and borders. We oppose any private or governmental action that rewards illegal entry into the United States in any way, and demand speedy and full enforcement of our laws concerning all such activities."
"In 2003, Romney chose a hard core environmental activist,Douglas Foy, to be Secretary of Commonwealth Development. In this position he was charged with developing a scheme to restrict greenhouse gas emissions.
With Mr. Foy by his side, Mr. Romney joined activists outside an aging, coal-fired plant in 2003 to show his commitment to the emissions caps. I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people, and that plant, that plant kills people, he said."
Gosh, be patient. I told him I would answer his questions. I have other duties that take up large chunks of my day.
"two of Romneys appointments have how found a home in the Obama White House.
Gina McCarthy, the chief EPA clean air regulator, also worked as an environmental regulator for then-Governor Romney. Her role now is as point guard (nyuk) in the Obama "
"Another Romney environmental adviser in the effort to regulate greenhouse gases is now Obamas Director of Science and Technology Policy, John Holdren."
I have run several small family businesses.
A) Quit spending more than we take in.
B) Quit spending money, including the money of our posterity, on things that are outside the Constitution's Enumerated Powers.
Our goal is to have one million or more principled patriots in place by this summer who will each run their own front porch campaign and drag fifty, or a hundred, or more people to the polls with them. If they do that, we win.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.