In response to:
Romney lost because he was too namby-pamby towards Obama. He should have played hardball with the dog-eatin' Kenyan by, when Obama demanded his tax returns, demanding from Obama a genuine birth certificate while also calling for an independent investigation and DEPORTATION hearing for Obama [since a non-U.S. citizen is NOT entitled to impeachment proceedings].
And while Romney was scheduling the deportation hearing, by twisting RINO Boehner's arm to arrange it [as the House could have done (for the Senate has exclusivity only when it comes to impeachment proceedings)], Romney should have fired one salvo after another about the many egregious acts by Obama THAT ROMNEY DIDN'T EVEN BRING UP:
In combing through the results of the 2012 election -- apparently finally complete, nearly two months after the fact -- I continue to find many similarities between 2012 and 2004, and one enormous difference.
Both of the elections involved incumbent presidents with approval ratings hovering around or just under 50 percent facing challengers who were rich men from Massachusetts (though one made his money and the other married it).
In both cases, the challenger and his campaign seemed confident he was going to win -- and had reasonable grounds to believe so.
In both elections, the incumbent started running a barrage...
And Romney should have countered Obama's criticizing of Romney on abortion by exposing the fact that Obama is so extremist that he even defended killing NEWBORN babies who survived abortions!
Also Romney should have called for answers on Benghazi, "Fast & Furious," Solyndra, etc., etc. Romney has a veritable smorgasbord of "entrees" he could have assailed Obama upon, but all he did was nibble like a fat woman on a diet.