For the life of me I can't see Willard Romney as the leader of a Republican Party which in body, mind and spirit embraces teavangelicals masquerading as colonial rebels. Romney is oh, so much more like a Redcoat than a Lexington, Massachusetts militiaman. And Obama---even though he in many ways is an elitist for whom the teavangelicals have as much visceral hatred as the real colonial rebels had for their British overseers---Obama seems much more of an everyday American to me than Romney ever will.

I like the comparison of Romney as Lord Cornwallis and Obama as Nathanael Greene. Greene, who began the war as a private, became the Revolutionary General who slowly bled out Cornwallis with a string of no-victories which led eventually to Cornwallis' entrapment at Yorktown, Va. where he was defeated by a combined force of American Continentals and French troops.

By the way, it is indeed odd that for their derision of all things French, the teavangelicals have forgotten that the French were essential in helping us win our American freedoms at Yorktown---not only French ground troops but the French fleet which prevented the British Navy from re-supplying Willard Lord Cornwallis.

The Republicans entered the 2012 Presidential race with a simple strategy. De-legitimize Obama's Presidency. Deny any legislation or policy which might help the economy. Nominate Anyone. Run against the economy. Use blunt force advertising to win. There is a certain arrogance and presumption of winning in that strategy. No doubt Cornwallis was similarly confident.

In nominating Mr. Anyone, Republicans have nominated the only moderate remaining in the Republican party who is willing to flip flop on virtually every position he's ever held.. But the Republican party is not a party of moderates. Romney is out of place and everyone knows it. He pounded his weak primary opponents by overwhelming them with negative advertising. He intends to do the same against Obama.

Romney's strongest pitch is to hang a slowly recovering economy around Obama's neck. But this is a blunt strategy, much like Cornwallis' overwhelming forces were a blunt force and his military strategy tied to something other than men fighting for their freedom.  Obama must be the consummate tactician to win against such a force---much as Nathanael Greene outmaneuvered Cornwallis with a string of no-victories, all of which resulted in winning the war.

The economy notwithstanding, Obama is demonstrating tactics. While Romney is piling up money for advertising in the late stages, Obama is defining him as a businessman whose experience is not necessarily relevant to running the economy of the U.S. And "Romney and his allies want to go back to the failed Republican policies of the previous eight years." (notice, Bush's name was not used). As for Healthcare, we love Romneycare because of its benefits. And the benefits are these. And oh, Romney is abandoning his principles by denigrating the greatest achievement of his own Governorship. Both Obama and Romney are flawed, but which one the more so? It comes down to a choice between the two.

As Mike McKenna, a Republican consultant, has just said, "If the election hinged on the economy, Obama would be dead by now."  So can Obama survive another four months of a lackluster economy and the shelling that will come with it? It would seem that Romney's overwhelming stash of bad economy ammunition will defeat Obama, and perhaps it will. But as was the case with Greene, Obama is not without weapons of his own.  

By using a string of skirmishes, using intelligence and hitting Romney's weaknesses Obama can wage a war of attrition against Romney who has essentially only one strategy---blunt advertising force against a weak economy during Obama's presidency. I'm opting for a Nathanael Greene-style war of attrition against Romney, a string of small maneuvers and no-victories, the use of small arms and bayonets, and the final entrapment of Romney the Redcoat in a sea of contradictions and failed use of superior firepower. Death by a thousand mistakes.

It is a Sunday afternoon and analogies come cheaply, leaving both flanks defenseless. There is in fact a troubling quote by Brig. Gen. Dan Morgan who split from Nathanael Greene's "army" which in turn caused Cornwallis to split his own forces and be drawn into a staged battle with Morgan at Cowpens. Morgan stationed his men in front of a river over which there was no retreat. His troubling quote, amidst this analogy, was "Men fight only as much as they find necessary, and no more"---which is way too close to my perceptions of Obama on those days when I conclude that he is too conciliatory. But another quote of Morgan's provides some reassurances--- "When Men are forced to fight---they will sell their lives dearly."

Morgan won the battle at Cowpens.  

Obama is defending his Presidency. I think he will win.