The GOP will run a CEO in 2016, and someone who will lose in 2012

[jmowreader]

The two reasons this will happen:

(1) the Democratic president they made damn sure would win in 2008 hasn't finished fixing the country yet, and they haven't finished demonizing him yet
(2) they have no one else

Look at the contendas: the religious right candidates are insane, the tea party candidates are worse and the business candidates are flinging around discredited economic theories. (Hint to roaming teabaggers: low interest rates, not low taxes, drive the economy.)

So...they'll throw 2012 then run a CEO of a SUCCESSFUL company this time--not the CEO of three oil companies who couldn't find any oil, but someone from somewhere like Walmart or GE.

[lazarus]

1. one of their plans is being disrailed

I firmly believe they had Meg Whitman in mind as the "successful" CEO candidate in either 12 or 16, once she "saved" California, but I don't think she's even going to manage getting elected at this point.

[chillspike]

3. yea, that and ebay sucks

ever try to list something? it's like pulling teeth. lol

[Sebastian Doyle]

5. The Repukes want to have the "first woman president" title more than anything.

Problem is they don't have a single female candidate with credibility. Meg Whitman? Uh uh. Carly Demon Sheep? Yeah right. Moosealini? Please. Michelle Bachmann? :rofl:

I suppose they could try Susan Collins of Maine, but I don't even think Republicans would be able to stand listening to her for more than 5 minutes. I don't know what it is about her voice but.... :scared:

[Speck Tater]

2. The way the economy is headed, buy 2016 there won't be any such a thing as a successful company. nt

[WeDidIt]

4. They'll probably run Palin in 2012

just because once she loses from the big chair, nobody will want to have anything more to do with her.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

6. Newt/Mitt in '12.

That'll vet Mitt for '16. Not that they'll hand it to Mitt in '16 but he'll be the guy to beat.