Skip to comments.Mitt Is Doing Just Fine
Posted on 07/23/2012 6:44:10 PM PDT by mandaladon
Remember the famous "Rumble in the Jungle," where an aging Muhammad Ali outfoxed a youthful, overeager George Foreman in one of the greatest fights of all time?
Ali was almost over the hill at age 32 and hadn't held the title for five years. Foreman was a youthful 25 and had been crowned champion when he clobbered Joe Frazier, who had beaten Ali in the 1971 "Fight of the Century." In his prime, Ali had won by "floating like a butterfly stinging like a bee." Now in 1974 there was a question of whether Ali's aging legs could keep him out of reach of Foreman's devastating power.
When they finally entered the ring, Ali astonished everybody by cowering against the ropes and letting Foreman beat him mercilessly. To this day it is not clear whether Ali's corner knew what was going on -- they kept yelling at him to get off the ropes and move around. For eight rounds Ali took literally hundreds of blows until Foreman had punched himself silly. Then he suddenly jumped off the ropes and decked the arm-weary Foreman with a flurry of five punches.
That's the kind of fight Mitt Romney should be fighting -- and is fighting -- against Barack Obama.
There is no sense in trying to match Obama, gutter-punch for gutter-punch. The Obama team has obviously decided (what else could they do?) that the President cannot run on his record. Therefore the only thing to do is hit Romney with whatever comes to hand. There won't be any attempt to be logical or consistent. Anything that turns up they will throw at him.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Forget the boxing analogy being offered, if you want to draw comparisons to boxing, the first thing is to acknowledge that 0bama is the ‘Dope on the Ropes’ and he SHOULD be tanking and liable to get knocked out, unfortunately Romney is more likely to emulate Jerry Cooney in this matchup, and we all remember how that ended up.
Frankly, I hope both of them lose. They're both losers.
If one of them must win, it won't be Romney. His base is liberals who won't vote for Obama and there aren't enough of those to make up for the conservatives that won't vote for either of them.
One sure thing is, both of them won’t lose.
Second obvious thing, your “facts” are just wrong.
Romney’s base is NOT liberals who won’t vote for Obama. That can’t be called a base. That is a once in a lifetime, small oddity.
Romney’s base - albeit a reluctant one - is the Republican party and the Anybody but Obama conservatives whether independent or GOP (and the Tea Party WILL participate), and it is in some states (WV, AR, KY, PA) a contingent of former Reagan Democrats who have finally had enough.
The size of Romney’s vote will no doubt stagger you.
You live in a dream world.
But you will come up with another dream after the vote to continue living in an alternate reality.
I haven’t voted for Romney and won’t vote for Romney.
But that’s because Texas will vote for a Mormon Yankee for President in order to rid us of Obama, therefore I don’t have to give Romney my vote when I am loathe to do so.
Get it? Texas will vote for a Mormon Yankee instead of Obama?
That right there blows your so-called “facts”, of who will vote for him, to smithereens.
Ok, never mind...
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.