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.
A) You can't trust Romney Republicans to even know what conservatism is, much less who is a real conservative and who is just another liar.
B) Romney's money and his growing control over the GOP is already being used to load Congress with even more unprincipled Romney Republicans.
WTF is a “right-wing Democrat” ? And why in the hell would I want to help someone whom is the most execrable con-artist the GOP has ever put up ? I already know what he did as Governor, I was watching him closely and he was absolutely horrible ! Voting Third Party is not only the smart thing to do, it’s the only ethical and moral way to go if you’re a Conservative.
You proceed from a false assumption that Conservatives will be able to keep Slick Willard in line. That is hillarious. He has no use for Conservatives, beyond suckering those stupid enough to fall for him for their votes. His mama hated Conservatives. His daddy hated Conservatives. He hates Conservatives. He’s gonna do what he wants when he wants, and if it screws Conservatives, all the better. I don’t want that thing anywhere near the White House. Period.
I believe he asked how you were going to get the votes of tattooed video gaming WalMart shoppers. Not that he was worried about getting their votes.
You are the one running for president, right?
Do you suppose your one million supporters dragging 50-100 people to the polls for you doesn’t involve making an appeal to the great unwashed?
Yes, Obama's Magic Wand is a point in his favor ... /s
#318: Has Romney promised you a job? What other reason could there be for someone posing as a conservative to support the Massachusetts mushball, pro-abort, family institution destroying, socialized medicine enthusing, serial lying, utterly coreless, global warming flunky, tax hiking (on ordinary folks only to shift the burden from his spoiled and privileged Wall Street financiers) etc. Romney is a useless POS who will not only wreck this country but also leave it without even an opposition party to bipartisan Obamunism.
#319: I knew Bill Buckley for years. I suspect you did not. My wife worked directly for him for years. Don't try to lay off your mushy moderation and rejection of principle on Bill.
Bill famously stated on many occasions that he would rather be governed by 100 names chosen randomly from the telephone directory than by 100 members of the Yale or Harvard faculties. So much for pseudo-intellectual elitism which is no more valid than the money-grubbing kind.
Further, Bill's brother James Lane Buckley (not a smooth natural schmoozer or baby-kissing politician), managed to carry none too conservative New York State in a Senate race as Ronaldus Maximus twice did in POTUS races. In 1980, Reagan came verrrrry close to carrying New York City, closer than any GOP candidate by far than any since Calvin Coolidge actually carried New York City in 1924. Coolidge was NOT a noted moderate mushball although he had been governor of Massachusetts (a much earlier and much more conservative Massachusetts).
Reagan was also a LOT more popular in Massachusetts than Romney ever dreamed of being as evidenced by their respective election results.
Somehow, I don't recall Bill Buckley urging Reagan to run for some obscure but safely GOP Congressional seat. That's because Bill never did suggest that. AND Bill did not fear democratic election processes. Waxing philosophical after a loss is not the same as adopting the profile of the cowardly RINO surrender monkeys and leftists in GOP drag who make up the GOP-Elite. They would be flat out Democrats reflecting their belief structures if they could stand rubbing elbows socially with poor folks, Blacks or Hispanics who are all rarities at their polo clubs.
We may resort to courts from time to time out of necessity and as last stands such as with Obozocare (Romneycare?), Second Amendment issues in the face of general elitist stupidity and other leftist shrinking from the plain language of that amendment, or other occasional issues, but we are far better off crushing our enemies at the polls. We can do that with a Reagan but never with a Dole or a Ford or a McCain or the other pantywaist elitist Republican types. We are generally more likely to be subjected judicially to a black-robed wall of elitist tyranny such as is represented by Roe vs. Wade and similarly infamous and quite unconstitutional examples of elitist social revolution masquerading as law and proving that the system of checks and balances has been fatally defective since Marbury vs. Madison, if not earlier.
The danger with Romney is that the conservative base soooooo despises Obozo, and understandably so, that it may be tempted this one time to deliver for such a despicable and even more damaging cretin like Romney, inadvertently doing more damage than even Obozo and his "tsars" are capable of doing. I well understand that our democracy or republic or democratic republic or nation itself is not guaranteed to be perpetual. Do you? AND do you understand how close we are to the end? This nation lost the Democrat Party to the McGovernite Demonrats (communists and their absolute tools) in 1972, apparently permanently. If Romney is elected, there will be now and for the far foreseeable future NO GOP TO DEFEND this nation's institutions and way of life.
Democracy means the electorate's choice (with certain limitations like the distribution of Senate seats at two per state regardless of size, gerrymandering as a way of life, and the Electoral College mechanism. It was not a choice of evils when the GOP was forced to nominate Ronaldus Maximus twice. In those elections, the choice was good vs. evil: Reagan vs. Carter and then Reagan vs. Mondale. In 1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2008, it was a choice between evils. For me, the jury is still out on 2000 and 2004 because the jury is still out on Dubya whose opponents were certainly evil. 2012 will be the worst choice of evils yet if we only look at the two major parties.
Your post did not pain you. It reflects your beliefs. It does not pain me because it does not deserve such serious attention as to do so.
I think a right wing Demonrat (post 1972) is one who hallucinates being a Menshevik rather than an outright more obvious Bolshevik.
Romney is much more likely to disdain them as "the great unwashed." They just don't understand the vital importance of derivatives and other smartass sophisticated Wall Street plunderer's financial schemes to gull the suckers and the mere peons who actually have to pay taxes at a higher rate than their majesties.
NMost of us can live without derivatives but occasionally have a real need for auto mechanics, electricians and plumbers who may well also be Walmart Shoppers rather than patrons of Rodeo Drive or Fifth Avenue.
And a LOT more likely to get their news from Jon Stewart, if they know anything about the world at all.
It’s not just about getting the people who agree with the Constitution to vote for your guy.
If it were only that easy. You need to get votes from the electorate that really exists. And a large number of them voted for Obama last time.
I actually shop at Walmart. I seriously doubt Mr. Romney has ever needed to.
I’ve pushed a broom for a living. Mr. Romney has definitely never needed to.
When it comes to relating to the regular folks, I’ve actually walked in their shoes.
There’s a story I heard years ago, and I can’t track down its provenance, but it rings true:
After the Civil War there was a former general being challenged for a seat in congress by a former private, and the former private was asked how in the world he thought he could beat a former general. His drawled response was, “Well, the way I figure it is that there were a whole lot more of us privates than there were generals.”
I thought you thought Perot cost Bush the win? That’s the prevailing wisdom around here. Some democrats claim George Wallace cost HHH in 1968 which I find hilarious.
Some exit polls showed that Perot voters broke evenly on their second choice, that would mean of course a Clinton win by the same margin. I think Bush would have gotten more Perot votes and gained several states making it a closer election but would he have won? I doubt it, he was not popular. He would have needed too high a proportion of the Perot vote in some states, like Gore’s Tennessee where Clinton won with 47% and Perot got 10%.
If the October surprise of Caspar Weinberger didn’t happen though, I heard polls were close before that.
The conservative Goode doesn’t compare to the ideologically muddled Perot though, he won’t take any votes from Obama (maybe a few dixecrat whackos, statistically insignificant).
Voting for him isn’t the same thing as voting “for Obama” though, mathematically speaking voting for any third party candidate who can’t win (at the end it was clear he would come in third but Perot in 92 had the potential to win, Goode doesn’t) has the same effect as not voting at all. So if I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Romney I’d probably just write in Calvin Coolidge rather than vote for Goode whom I don’t particularly care for.
I want Osama gone, risk of another RINO disaster notwithstanding. I’ll worry about the a-hole who might want to burn down my house after I get rid of the a-hole who is currently not only trying to burn down my house but make sure I can’t get out first.
I doubt Goode will get many votes, the Constitution party barley gets any. He is by far the most well known and qualified candidate that party has ever had but he is still a little known figure nationally. He is most likely to be a factor in his own state which is a a must win for the fingerless glove (Mitt). Bob Barr got less than 1% in Georgia in 2008 though.
His and the Constitution parties support though was more than the Obama margin in Indiana and NC. And Ron Paul’s 2% in Montana (as the nominee of the state’s rouge Constitution party) drove McCain under 50% there. The Nader vote exceeded McCain’s margin in Missouri but Obama still would have been shy of 50%. Nader of course prevented Gore from winning in 2000.
If it’s a very very close race like in 2000 Goode voters might be the difference for Obama but it’s not likely to be THAT close.
Very interesting debate. My position is sans Ross Bush would have lost a close race. Dole as well. I’d rather have had Dole in 88 or have Dole win in 1996 instead of W. Bush in 2000.
Powell makes me sick, I’d wouldn’t take him over Romney or even Jon Huntsman. I doubt a Senator Romney could have beaten Dole in the 96 primaries fresh of running as a “moderate”, ego or no ego I doubt he would have tried, he would have angled for VP maybe, or waited until 2000 after having had time to flip flop to conservative positions.
I may have said Perot kept Bush, Sr. from a second term in the past, but looking at it now and how things broke down and the dynamics I cited, I don’t really see how he could’ve overcome them in a two-man race. I believe only Lee Atwater could’ve rescued Bush, he would’ve eviscerated both Perot & Clinton (the rape stuff would’ve been front and center, and given when that would’ve been aired, Atwater might’ve tried to take out Clinton in the primary season, which would’ve left the Dems with Tsongas (and iffy health, essentially Dukakis II) or Jerry Brown (too nutty, too serious and unable to connect with middle America)).
It’s sad that we don’t have anyone of Atwater’s talent in the GOP today, at least no one we’ve heard of. Can you imagine what Atwater could’ve done with Zero ? We need these fearless, go for the jugular types. The GOP is so sadly whipped and gutless today. The media/Democrats scream “racist”, and the GOP goes and cowers in the corner. Sickening. No wonder we end up with $hit like Slick Willard.
But, as for me, unless the party dumps the piece of merde, I won’t support either evil over Goode.
I’ll bet if Dole had secured the nomination in 1988 (I supported him over Bush, Sr. at the time, btw, even though I wasn’t old enough to vote, but I was already chin-deep into politics), his running mate would’ve been none other than, you guessed it, Jack Kemp. I surmise Dole would’ve won, but he wouldn’t have done the “read my lips” bit that would ultimately kill Bush, Sr.’s chances for a second term. Dole probably would’ve been a marginally better President. Jack Kemp might’ve successfully managed to succeed him in 1996, despite a few nutty positions, his pleasant personality and unquestionable earnestness on bringing Blacks & Hispanics back to the GOP would’ve probably gotten it done. Ultimately, we would’ve dodged all the Bushies (although perhaps it would’ve been Jeb that might’ve ended up a leading Presidential contender for 2004).
Start with removing it from any official recognition. Primarily in Congress, and State legislatures. And most importantly in elections and on ballots. Parties could still conduct primaries if they wish, and only allow the winner to enter the general election.Or a sort of primary like election, which would be open to anyone who got sufficient signatures and which would select the top two candidates for the general. But no party labels on the ballots, and random order on the ballots/machines. Sort of a playoff type system. If two conservatives happened to be the most popular, then they would get on the ballot, thus lessoning the dilution of the vote problem
Start with removing it from any official recognition. Primarily in Congress, and State legislatures. And most importantly in elections and on ballots. Parties could still conduct primaries if they wish, and only allow the winner to enter the general election.Or a sort of primary like election, which would be open to anyone who got sufficient signatures and which would select the top two candidates for the general. But no party labels on the ballots, and random order on the ballots/machines. Sort of a playoff type system. If two conservatives happened to be the most popular, then they would get on the ballot, thus lessoning the dilution of the vote problem
Touche, we’re getting into philosophy here, makes my head hurt. A person’s one vote is highly unlikely to make the difference anywhere. But everyone thinks that and all those votes would make a difference.
Billyboy says he’d walk over broken glass to vote for Glove if he lived in Ohio but probably won’t bother since he lives here. I’ve heard similar from other ratstaters.
If it’s even close here it means Osama is getting his teeth kicked in by a far large margin that expected. I think it will be Bush 2004 #s at best.
Now it may be true that a handful of Ron Paulistinian wannabe philosopher kings (probably prohibited by their colleges from presently owning cars) get their jollies in late night dormitory bullcrap sessions worrying about the violation of the carjackers' "rights" to be prosecuted only by state or county authorities and the just awful "violence" being perpetrated by Congress against the long largely obsolete Tenth Amendment almighty, but most of us don't lose sleep over carjackers' "rights." Nor are most of us calculating with precision how to legalize Heinz 57 varieties of hallucinogenic and narcotic entertainments through the action or inaction of local medicated gummint poohbahs.
Before worrying about folks voting FOR the constitution, first they (including particularly all those Rodeo Drive/Fifth Avenue shoppers) to have the vaguest clue as to the constitution. Their snobbiness and materialism is not an equivalent of knowledge. Plumbers and auto mechanics and army privates vote too. Each is one hell of a lot more likely than the snobbicans to vote the following agenda which just happens to be the agenda of the seldom well-funded but quite numerous populist right (i.e., THE BASE) of the GOP.
Walmart shopper agenda:
1. Memorably kick the patoot of America's enemies and get the hell out without "nation building" which only soothes the overactive "consciences" and "guilt complexes of the GOP-E.
2. If elitist Adam is a lavender queen with an overwhelming desire to penetrate the nether end of Bruce's digestive tract and Bruce has similar and complimentary yearnings and both just have to rub normal folks noses in their despicable misbehavior, then the two of them can move Amsterdam or some other decadent European urban area where they would be much more comfortable. They won't be missed.
3. If little Miss Muffy Pecksniff has flubbed her birth control yet again while pulling a train for the Third Army or, as they say in Muffy's circle, "slumming to the max," and relishing the "diversity" of them all, and is heading off to the STD WOMEN'S RIGHTS "clinic" to dispose of her latest pregnancy (After all, she will be fourteen any day now) and, as her mums and daddy poo have taught her is just NO ONE'S business but her own that she wants to get rid of that inconvenient fun-killing baby. Toooooo BAD for Muffy.
4. Capital punishment of anyone responsible (by public guillotine if possible) for promoters and recipients of TARP and bailouts of those elitist smartass banking institutions and corporations at the expense of ordinary taxpaying folks because those institutions are, altogether now: TOO BIG TO FAIL lest the opportunistic birdbrains running them and their gummint patrons have to suffer Mansion in the Hamptons divestment. Those payoffs to the connected are NOT some sort of human right (even riskily assuming the humanity of the lavishly moneyed and ultra "connected" pigs who are the beneficiaries) whatever Jon Corzine or Goldman Sachs may imagine.
5. Ridding themselves of any dependence whatsoever for news and views upon the likes of Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, NBC, ABC, SeeBS, MSLSD, the New York Times (elitists take heed), Conan O'Brien, David Letterman, Jimmy Whazzisname, Nightline and their ilk and a dedication to getting news from Rush, Sean, Mark Levin and from what they have found to be dependable internet sites.
6. A firm and scrupulously observed allergy to polo, tiddleywinks, public "readings" of the "poetry" (we use that term advisedly) of various forms of physical and "intellectual" and (ditto) perverts and to tofu posing as food (no government regs but firm voluntary avoidance).
7. A pure burning hatred of the government taking over and ruining any more sectors of the economy and particularly medicine and energy but anything really.
8. Prevention of the proliferation of federal food police and other nanny nags even if they are not allowed to carry guns at "work."
9. Gun control or any other violation of the RTKBA over the private sector.
10. Use in public of any obscenities by public officials: i.e. ANY PHRASE starting with the word "global." There are women and children listening. Penalty: Offending official's tongue pulled out by the roots after suitable preliminary punishments as administered by our Iroquois forefathers as an early response to the invasion by the White Eyes. Lowell Weicker, Vladimir Putin, the Yale and Harvard faculties and supporters of Mitt Romney and of Obozo may be employed for practice until Our People regain their ancestral skills.
11. Restoration of Apache territory and way of life (and of enemy death). Iroquois leftovers may be sent, along with liberals and social revolutionaries to rural Arizona and the Apache strongholds for final disposition.
As much more as one may like upon request.
Let's take our case to the Walmart shoppers any day.
Same here in Maryland. My vote counts for nothing in the Republican primary and it counts for the same nothing in the general election. There is no guess-working in telling who would/will win in those two. Obama will win Maryland easily.
My county used to be solidly Republican until the GWB first term and then went solidly liberal Democrat with the Bush -housing-bubble-boom mass of liberal voters moving here, many are immigrants.(Remember how we were told we would all die if GWB lost, just like now?)
Dont forget it's an electoral system so if your state is liberal then there is no chance for you making any difference.
Ohio and Florida are great states to move to for that.
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.