Wikipedia offers a nice definition of the “rope-a-dope” boxing style:
The maneuver is most commonly associated with the match between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman, known as the Rumble in the Jungle. Foreman was considered by many observers to be the favored to win the fight due to his superior punching power. During the match Ali purposely angered Foreman, provoking the latter to attack and force him back on the ropes. At the time some observers thought that Ali was being horribly beaten and worried that they might see him get killed in the ring. Writer George Plimpton described Ali’s stance as like “a man leaning out his window trying to see something on his roof.” However, far from being brutalized, Ali was relatively protected from Foreman’s blows. Ironically, Ali’s preparation for the fight, which involved toughening himself up by allowing his sparring partners to pummel him, contributed to observers’ sense that Ali was outmatched. When Foreman became tired from the beating he was delivering, Ali regrouped and ended up winning the match.
Emphasis added to bring me to the 2012 presidential campaign. Barack Obama and the various outfits backing his campaign have spent tens, if not hundreds of millions, pummeling Mitt Romney, but instead of tiring themselves out with the attacks, they have desensitized the American people to their tired tropes.
So, by my (speculative) theory, the Romney team, knowing that they were at a cash disadvantage all summer, would just stand back and take the pummeling, then, certain there would be a large audience for the first debate, Romney would start punching back, presenting an image of a man at odds with the Obama attack ads, making it more difficult, if not impossible, for the old strategy to be effective: the people would be tired of the attacks and more ready to question their accuracy.
Now, maybe I’m wrong. Hugh Hewitt today alerts us to the Politico story by Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei on “the Romney rebellion.” which suggests there was a “family-led shake-up of the Romney team”, indicating a shift in strategy. “Perhaps”, Hugh offers
. . . it was this dramatic, or perhaps there was a plan to scale up Romney’s game as the early voting season neared. It desn’t matter. What matters is that when it mattered most –when the biggest audience was watching for the longest time, Romney brought his best game and Obama his worst. Those are the sorts of pressure-filled performances, both good and bad, that set a public’s mind, and once set, it isn’t easily changed.
RELATED: When I did a search for Rope-A-Dope, learned that I was not the first to use this term to describe Romney’s strategy.
Romney was correct for not wasting time fighting back when everyone was preoccupied with summer activities. Let Obama waste his cash when no one was really paying attention. Let Obama waste his cash creating an image of Romney that Romney could easily shatter.
Shining a light under the bed is the easiest way to see if there is a boogie man under the bed.
Obama screamed all summer, “there is a boogie man under the bed”. Romney simply turned the light on.
I don’t think Romney is doing any fancy strategy – just like I don’t think Obama is. (Some on the Left have claimed that by lying down in the first debate, Obama is engaged in rope-a-doping Romney.)
It’s simpler. Romney can’t get his message out through the “liberal media” filter. In the debate, there was no media filter – so people, many for the first time, saw Romney and his message as they are.
Saying the same thing from Obama’s point of view: His is, and always has been, to paint a false picture of his opponents and spread straw men everywhere. With the help of a compliant media, the strategy works. Faced with a strong opponent defending himself, the strategy collapses.
It was the same in the Carter-Reagan race. When your strategy is to paint a false picture of your opponent, televised debates are a mistake. Carter should never have debated Reagan. Obama should have never debated Romney.
aargh – “Obama’s -strategy- is, and always has been…”
This is twice Romney has successfully lowered expectations in advance of a major campaign milestone. His acceptance speech at the convention fell flat, leaving many to conclude his debate performance would be not much better than we come to expect from Republican candidates. (Bush 41, Dole, Bush 43, and McCain all sucked at debates). It made it all the more surprising when he appeared forceful, articulate, and engaging against an apparently clueless Obama. (Dumb bastard left the debate thinking he had won).
Recall that prior to naming Ryan as his running mate, all the buzz was about the uninspiring “boring white guy” Rob Portman; making the choice of Ryan a much more pleasant surprise.
I always enjoy a boogie man under my bed. And I don’t turn on the light.
I always enjoy a boogie man IN my bed! And I don’t turn on the light, either.
Sorry, couldn’t resist. 😉
Regards,
Peter H.
I’m inclined to agree with ILC’s take on this, namely that Romney hasn’t necessarily been employing a specific strategy, but it looks like he has been simply because the Obama campaign’s strategy is so flawed. In another thread someone referenced the recent Ann Coulter book (which I haven’t yet read). As I understand it, though, one of the things Coulter illustrates in that book is the repeated tendency of leftists to rely on the same sleazy arguments and campaign tactics again and again, and in the case of Romney, at least, those tactics haven’t been working. As ILC pointed out, they collapsed completely in the first debate, where Obama couldn’t defend his positions and could only keep repeating the same lies and talking points that Romney had already disproved.
To the extent that Romney has employed a Rope-a-Dope strategy, it could be by winning the first debate so decisively, he knows Obama will be angry and emotional going into the second debate. As Ryan Hansen remarks in this piece, Romney should “guard his ears.” While Obama probably won’t resort to Mike Tyson’s tactics, the more unhinged he becomes by the second debate, the greater the possibility of a “Lonesome” Rhodes moment where Obama might inadvertently reveal too much about his actual thoughts before a national audience.
Can’t recall if Dan posted on this…. but John Podhoretz wrote this great column about the particularly fun “parlor trick” that only Republicans get to play.
Here it is: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/why_romney_romped_mYWYYMU0eJBKaEdzydqOPI
Is it Rope-A-Dope? Or Ju Jit Su? “Ju Jit Su is a Japanese martial art and a method of close combat for defeating an armed and armored opponent in which one uses no weapon or only a short weapon.”
Obama tired tricks of his intelligence is exposed. Romney only had to use facts.
Now, Obama’s surrogates are using the media to advance the narrative of Romney’s lies. The full armory is useless when Romney uses facts as weapons.
Of course, Ju Jit Su has an alternative meaning that is equally relevant.
“Ju Jit Su represents manipulating the opponent’s force against himself rather than confronting it with one’s own force.”
Since Obama’s force is that of an empty chair (suit), forcing Obama to use his force is what we saw at the debates and it wasn’t pretty.
I think Ace made a good point today. Obama wasn’t “off” during the debate; he was the same way he always is – spouting empty, vacuous platitudes and talking points. The difference was Romney, calling him out on them in a way no one ever had before.
At the end of the debate, Michelle trucked up on the stage to haul Obambi away. On the other side, a small flock of Romney’s came flowing up to kiss and hug and beam. Obama had the exceptional class to come over and greet the young Romney granddaughter. But the contrast was stark.
Obama is aloof, disconnected and programmed. Romney exudes authenticity. As Spengler (David P. Goldman) noted last week: “Obama’s greatest strength always has been his greatest weakness, potentially a catastrophic one: he manipulates so effectively because he has a compulsion to be in control. When he knows that he is not in control, Obama is paralyzed.”
It must be Hell in the Obama bunker.
I don’t know if it is an intentional rope-a-dope, but it seems almost like by default it is heading that way.
Obama has no record to defend and much of what he says he wants to do, makes one wonder why he hasn’t been doing it the last 4 years. His only option is to make himself the less of two evils and demonize his opponent-either make the electorate afraid of him or not trust him or believe he is an idiot.
The problem was in the debate people saw a Romney that didn’t fit the Obama caricature and Obama was awful-because he has no record to defend.
I am curious to see what Obama does in the next debate-I strongly suspect Obama is going to spend a lot of time attacking Romney aggressively, while still being unable to defend his own record. Hopefully Romney will expect this, and be ready to defend the attacks while asking Obama about his own record.
We’re going to watch the meltdown of the Gay Left within the federal government with the 2nd Romney/Obama debate.
I have said for weeks that I thought Romney was going about things the right way. As long as the polling was nearly tied (Romney within 5 points), let the Obama campaign blow their cash. Obama was absolutely saturating markets with ads but they weren’t moving the needle. The polls were unchanged. Romney could go about relatively quietly through the towns of the various swing states building an organization to support him on the ground. People are fired up. Today in Ohio there were 13,000 people to see Romney on a work night. That’s pretty good. People showed up in Virginia to see him in the rain.
Obama peaked too soon. Now people are getting a chance to see Obama and Romney side by side and are liking what they are seeing. Obama also has some serious storm clouds brewing with these hearings tomorrow on the Benghazi massacre. We have four dead Americans who were pleading for help before the attack because they needed more security. This is not just some random attack, they could have had a fighting chance. This is negligent homicide or manslaughter. This is an impeachable offense. These pleas for help were ignored.
Benghazi is going to be a watershed event. The press, intelligence community, and State Department are abandoning Obama on this one. All Obama can do is trot out Sandra Rice who doesn’t even fall under the State Department. Ambassador to the UN reports directly to the President and is a cabinet level position. The White House is all alone. I believe that in these hearings we will see the wheels falling off the cart. Carney hasn’t even had a White House press briefing for 15 days. They are afraid to talk to the press. The State Department came partially clean this evening on a conference call saying they never said anything about a YouTube video in reference to Benghazi.
Obama’s up a creek without a paddle and it’s a very stinky creek, indeed.
I don’t know what you mean by this. How is the liberal media preventing Romney’s message from going through? If there are no filters in debates, doesn’t that mean Mitt Romney has had like 20 more opportunities to get his message through with no media filter, on account of his going through the Republican primary season? And his message from the debate didn’t even make sense – revenue neutral tax cuts offset by closing loopholes? He’s either lying for votes or has decided to contradict conservative economic theory.
There was still a filter in this debate, Mitt himself. He’s running for President and is making a pitch, that’s why it’s vague and generic and not very small government from the sound of it. If you want to see what an unfiltered Mitt Romney looks like, watch the 47% video again.
Speaking of the 47% video… it vindicates pretty much everything that liberals have ever said about Mitt Romney. He wants to be the President of Rich People, and the rest of us can go suck an egg. What is the false picture that liberals paint? That video proves Romney is an inauthentic opportunist and that he harbors the kind of loathing of his fellow citizens that conservatives accuse Obama of bearing. It seems to me that we’re pretty right on about the guy.
Compare that the the conservative talking points about Barack Obama. The equivalent of the 47% video would feature Obama speaking at a Black Panthers rally about his Muslim heritage, Kenyan birth, and how he’s going to destroy capitalism by making whitey pay reparations to all the minorities. This is what conservatives think Obama is doing in his spare time and it seems just a tad unrealistic.
Here we go again with the cutting-and-pasting.
Try again – this time using your own words (if you can).
Regards,
Peter H.
Being both a tax-sucking leech and a part of the electorate that is committed to voting to Obama no matter how hard he fails, Levi is doubly insulted by Romney’s (indisputably accurate) observation about the 47%.
Where? Who? Not me.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt, wrong answer. Here’s the quote:
That’s just a fact. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. And people who believe they are victims, and who want to live off the public trough, are statistically less likely to vote for Romney. The quote only “vindicates what liberals have been saying about Romney”, if liberals have been saying that Romney is a man who states facts. But I don’t think you meant that.
Of course it does, little one. It always will seem that way to you. As we’ve discussed previously, you envy, fear hate and hate the kind of rich person who makes their fortune by creating wealth and jobs to the economy – something that you, and most other lefties, simply do not know how to do.
FIFY…. Dork.
BTW: I was wondering how many days after the debate it would take the left-wing trolls to show up. They were absent, several days.
I picture the scene in Terminator 2 where the T-1000 is frozen by liquid nitrogen and immovable and gets shattered – that would be the equivalent of Romney’s blowout debate win – and then, as some time passes, the
T-1000left-winger slowly re-assembles its shattered consciousness and starts to come at you again; facts be damned.Awww isn’t it cute how Levi edits a quote, though in the past he’s shrieked about an ‘edited tape’?
Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.
Not sure what you mean.
I must be missing the part of the video where Mitt says “I gave a woman cancer and she died… bwah ha ha ha ha ha HA HA HA HA!”
Funny, deluded Levi, that’s what you and Obama claimed could be done before.
So here we have another example of the unhinged bigot Levi, on the orders of Barack Obama, shrieking and screaming that something doesn’t make sense mere months after stating the same himself.
But again, this is typical. Levi is not driven by intelligence or rationality; like all liberals, he operates solely on blind hatred and bigotry, whipped up by the hate rhetoric and calls for Romney’s assassination coming from the Obama Party and his fellow “progressives”.
Incorrect.
Romney wants to be the President of the productive class, which more often than not happen to be rich.
The reason the leech class to which you belong is poor, Levi, is simple; work creates wealth. You don’t want to work, so you’re not going to be wealthy.
Your views and the views of your fellow leeches are well known, Levi. You do not work, don’t want to work, and demand that the productive class carry you. These are not views that Romney supports.
Why? Simple. Your refusal to work drains productivity. Your demands that we subsidize you when you are perfectly capable of working yourself takes money away from those who need it more. Your demands that we pay for the abortions that you make necessary by your coercing women into sex, having sex when they’re drunk, and having unprotected sex because you “forgot” your condom take food out of the mouths of other peoples’ children.
Simply put, Levi, the leech class like you does not care about anyone else or anything else other than you getting your way, you getting what you want, you having your every desire granted, and all of it done without you having to raise a finger.
The rest is details. You rationalize WHY you should be allowed to leech, but the simple fact of the matter is that you ARE a leech. “Progressive” and liberal thought is arranged around one thing and one thing only — using the government to steal other peoples’ work so you don’t have to.
Freaking brilliant. I stopped paying attention to Obama SOTU addresses, so I wouldn’t have known. I would have gone with an observation about Levi’s lack of understanding of basic tax concepts… which would have worked, i.e. would have been true… but not as strong.
Again with the “Romney insulted half of Americans” bull? The only reason that video would be damaging to Romney is that you are either a leftist who wants to obfuscate the truth about the state of entitlements or would prefer your politicians be more concerned with pandering than leading.
And, just saying, it doesn’t matter what the actual rate of people who don’t pay income tax, or are on some sort of entitlement, is. Whatever it is, it is too high. That it is as high as it is should be cause for alarm. Unless, that is, you are a proponent of the Cloward-Piven strategy (or are just plain stupid).
Moochers hate hearing that that’s what they are.
Someone living off entitlements and paying no income tax and feeling defensive about it all because he knows that, in his particular case, he really does take more from society than he has given in his life… that person usually hates being acknowledged.
That too…
It’s a fact that 47% of the population doesn’t pay income tax, but the rest is a series of completely subjective judgments about people he doesn’t know. Tellingly, you’ve also clipped the quote just before he gets to the part where he says he can’t teach them personal responsibility and that he doesn’t care about them. Essentially, Romney the rich man is blaming all the poor bottom-feeders for the country’s problems. That’s exactly how liberals have been characterizing Mitt Romney and the Republican Party.
You expect me to trust you better than myself on the question of how liberals have been criticizing Mitt Romney? That doesn’t make sense. I also like how you’ve completely changed the subject to accuse me of saying things I didn’t say. And you’re complaining about others’ use of straw men?
I’m not complaining because Romney insulted half of Americans. He did, unquestionably, insult half of all Americans, but I knew he held them in contempt anyway, that’s the modern Republican Party.
I know what you’re going for. Oh, he was just talking about income taxes. He’s concerned with the policy. Yeah? Well if you’re concerned with the policy, I would expect you to talk about how you’re going to fix it, and not go on a petulant little rich-boy rant about how all these bottom-feeders feel entitled to everything, that they don’t have any personal responsibility, and that they’re completely useless to you politically. And you would say that Mitt Romney is ‘leading’ by saying such stupid, blatantly untrue things about people?
“And you would say that Mitt Romney is ‘leading’ by saying such stupid, blatantly untrue things about people?”
Well, apparently, that’s exactly what SnObama has been doing – saying stupid and blatant untruths – and you haven’t had a problem with that.
Yet you claim he’s the real deal.
Checkmate.
Regards,
Peter H.