American Research Group poll: Perry, Romney, Bachmann in tight FLA race
The July ARG poll is based on 600 telephone interviews conducted July 18-24. MOE +/-4.
JULY POLL
Perry 16%
Bachmann 15%
Romney 15%
Palin 13%
Cain 11%
Giuliani 7%
Paul 4%
Gingrich 3%
Pawlenty 1%
Huntsman 1%
Santorum 1%
Undecided 12%
MAY POLL
Romney 26%
Huckabee 14%
Gingrich 11%
Palin 9%
Trmup 7%
Giuliani 6%
Bachmann 5%
Cain 4%
Daniels 3%
Paul !%
Pawlenty 1%
Santorum 1%
Undecided 11%
* * * * *
Perry’s name was listed on the May poll, but he did not receive a measurable percentage of votes.
Posting problem: ARG lists candidates in alphabetical order, not in the order of candidates that receive the most votes. I made several posting errors in an earlier version. My apologies to readers.
Tagged: presidential polls, rick perry
Old Charlie says:
Did Romney not even score in the July poll???
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
According to the results on their site, Romney and Bachmann are both at 15 percent. Perry at 16.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
As I indicated at the end of the writeup, I made several posting errors due to my initial failure to realize that ARG lists candidates alphabetically, instead of in the order of who received the most votes. My apologies for the confusion, which was my own.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Why is Huckabee listed above, because I don’t see him listed in the results on their website?
http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/primary/rep/fl/
Reply »
paulburka says:
ARG has also polled in Iowa and New Hampshire. In both states, Perry’s standing in the polls is 2%.
Reply »
Chuck says:
Pollster ratings: ARG is 61st of 63
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/pollster-ratings-v40-results.html
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 11:06 pm
Readers are free to debate the merits of various polling firms, but I’m not going to engage.
Reply »
FredCDobbs says:
Perry is going to be the nominee. Deal with it. I’ve known it in my heart for months. Perfect marriage of “anti-federal” tea party bullshit and corporate-approved lackey. I personally will be getting drunk.
I used to hate Reagan when I was a kid. Now I’d give my right arm for a Republican who cares about something other then getting elected by riling up the base.
Reply »
Harry Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 10:17 pm
They’re gone….forget that. Oh, by the way, Reagan was the first of them. Just ask Lee Atwater.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
“I used to hate Reagan as a kid”? How could anyone hate Reagan as a kid? I am 39 and LOVED Reagan as a kid. I only wish I had been old enough to vote for the man in something other than a mock school election. He is the defining American president of my lifetime, Although his Vice President George HW Bush was a class act and a decent enough commander-in-chief who had to deal with a liberal congress, we haven’t had leadership anywhere approachingReagan’s in this country since he left. His pro-market policies rekindled the American entrepreneurial engine and his peace through strength agenda brought the Soviets to their knees. Yes, we incurred deficits but nothing on the order of what we are seeing today and we got something absolutely tangible for it in the demise of Soviet communism. I am not for carving Reagan’s face into Mount Rushmore, but not because he was not one of our greatest presidents. He was. Easily top 10 material. I just think we can (and thankfully have) found other fora to recognize his greatness so we can leave other originals like Rushmore alone.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 11:11 pm
I agree. Reagan was the greatest president of the second half of the twentieth century. I voted for him twice. Republicans are quick to forget that he was not an ideologue with his head stuck in the sand. When the time came to fix social security, he did it. When the government needed to raise taxes, he did it. I never doubted that Reagan would be a good president, because he is from Hollywood, and in Hollywood, you only do what sells.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
I agree that the Gipper was not a rigid ideologue. H was a principled conservative who generally stuck to the same limited government, low taxes, federalism, peace trhough strength hymnal, but he had an ability to be pragmatic when he deemed it appropriate. Why the very makeup of his administration was at most times a blend of movement conservatives (I.e., Ed Meese) and pragmatic establishment Republicans (I.e. Jim Baker). He was a great leader and that is refected in public approval in the form of two smashing national landslide elections and enduring opinion poll approval. But he has also increasingly fared well in scholarly surveys and studies. America could really use another Ronald Reagan right about now.
Robert Morrow Reply:
July 25th, 2011 at 11:49 pm
I voted for Mondale in ’84 and Dukakis in ’88 and based on what I know now about the Reagan Administration that was a great move. And voting for Andre Marrou in 1992 was probably my best vote ever, dodging both the Clintons and the Bushes.
GHW Bush has a public persona of a class act and a nice guy. In reality – and I am restraining myself so Burka does not delete this – there are some very dark sides to GHW Bush who has been CIA for much of his adult life (way before he was officially CIA director).
Remember, the MSM is controlled. They will never tell you what a Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, or Bush is really up to because it would just to too discrediting to the political elites.
So, if you are seeking truth, you need to read the boutique books and the alternative media. There is a lot of truth out there, carefully being shielded from the people.
One good book to read on GHW Bush is George Bush: the Unauthorized Biography by Webster Tarpley: http://www.amazon.com/George-Bush-Webster-Griffin-Tarpley/dp/0930852923
An even better book is by former intelligence operative Russell Bowen titled: “The Immaculate Deception: Bush Crime Family Exposed.”
Last night on Sean Hannity he had on Jeb Bush for one full hour; it was a fawning love piece and campaign commercial for the Bushes. I watched it. But remember FOX and Hannity are only giving you one side; it was a heavy dose of Bush propaganda, almost an endorsement of Jeb Bush for president.
I consume a lot of political media and I will tell you Alex Jones – in general – is every bit as credible as FOX, MSNBC, CNN, NY Times, Wash Post, Austin American Statesman.
They are all flawed, Jones included, and you have to read them with a critical mind. So you have to escape the MSM to get a lot of truth.
Reply »
Cow Droppings Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 10:35 am
do you still think George H.W. Bush was a pedophile?
Fiftycal Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Alex jones follower. Does your flag have a fringe on it? Enough said. NEXT!
Tim Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Actually Reagan created deficits larger than Obama’s to date is less than Reagan’s in percent increase (although obviously Obama’s not done so there’s the possibility he’ll far exceed Reagan’s record), but George Bush’s still US champ in the racking up debt department. It’s doubtful that Obama will be even given the chance to get to Bush’s levels.
SRC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 2:31 pm
Deficits as a percentage of GDP under Reagan did not ever reach where we are under Obama. Moreover, growth rates under Reagan were stunning. For example, In the 1983-84 period, 3.9% GDP growth was the WEAKEST quarter of growth. I don’t think Obama has had even two back to back quarters at that level, and I would wager a large sum of money that he’ll be lucky to get a single quarter of growth at that level between now and the election. Unemployment dropped form a peak of 10.8% in first half of Reagan’s first term to 7.2% by election day. America took off like a rocket and growth continued relatively uninterrupted for a quarter century. Finally, again, most objective observers will acknowledge that the deficits under Reagan were a significant contributor to American victory in the Cold War (see even liberal former NYT columnist Anthony Lewis in the PBS American Experience/American Presidents special on Reagan). The objective case is clear: the Gipper was a giant of American politics who is for good reason fondly remembered by a wide swath of Americans, not just Republicans.
longleaf Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
You could say President Cheney and his valet Dubya reversed Reagan’s “peace through strength” motto and gave us instead “weakness through war.”
The perpetual, unfunded wars/occupations costing several trillion dollars-and-counting as we enter their second decade will be seen by historians as the major cause of the downfall of the U.S. into permanent Third World status.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 10:29 pm
I think it is fair to say that Ronald Reagan was very careful with the use of American force. Other than a disastrous mission in Beruit that he quickly ended, he picked fights that would show the world that we would use force but they were ones he knew we would easily win (I.e., Grenada and shooting down Libyan jets). For the most part, Reagan instead used economic might, covert pressure and alliances to weaken and finally bring down the Soviets. The man who Clarke Clifford once called an amiable dunce in fact judged the state of Soviet communism better than his more conventionally credentialed political adversaries. His unshakeable faith in the rightness of the American cause and its preordained success produced results. And America could use that kind of buoyant and confident leadership again. It is time for an 80s redux and we may actually get one. American politics has shifted to the right just about every thirty years for more than a century–think of the 20s, the 50s, and the 80s. On that schedule, we are due.
Idra says:
I think the internet has made the conservative community much closer nationally, where one political leader can get a good word of mouth and rocket past less inspiring candidates.
How else to describe the results of this poll?
Romney is seeing his support erode even earlier than last cycle.
Reply »
paulburka says:
Romney is in decent shape in IA and New Hampshire. Perry has a long way to go in both states. I am going to take a restrained view of Perry’s chances until we see whether America likes him.
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
Anything can happen in politics. And http://www.intrade.com is as good of a political barometer than any poll; in fact it is most often BETTER than any single poll.
Right now at Intrade Perry is 33% chance of being GOP nominee, Romney 29%, Bachmann 10%, Huntsman 8%, Pawlenty 6%. And currently, based on what the political market knows, that is about right.
Polls changes, Intrade changes, political fortunes change. In October 2007 the national polls had Hillary firmly in the lead over Obama, and on Intrade Hillary was at 70% chance of being the Demo nominee. 10 weeks later Obama had a big win in Iowa, Hillary came in 3rd there, and that national polls and Intrade changed on a dime and Hillary’s fortunes had dropped like a rock.
I think that for right NOW, those odds are about right. But remember when the voting starts, those polls will change on a dime and can break either for or against a candidate quickly.
Reply »
Red says:
Romney has a ceiling. Just because Pawlenty has backed off of “Obamneycare” doesn’t mean a known flamethrower wouldn’t use that attack. In fact, I have a hunch that’d be one of Perry’s main attack thrusts, along with Romney’s “business acumen” consisting mostly of downsizing, then comparing it with Texas’s economic growth.
There’s no way Romney is the nominee, just like there was no way Giuliani was going to be it in 2008.
Reply »
FredCDobbs says:
Paul and Anonymous,
That’s what I was trying to say, that I’ve really reevaluated Reagan as I’ve gotten older and seen what American politics have become. In hindsight (I don’t remember anyone claiming this at the time), his Cold War strategy, which was based on a moral value, was the last grandly successful American foreign policy!
Anyhoo, I was a punk rocker 16 year old in 1984. I wasn’t supposed to like him.
The biggest thing I personally miss is the ability to compromise for the good of the country WHEN NECESSARY. If Perry ever took a policy stand he know would cause him political pain I can’t remember it.
p.s. A civil discussion on the Internet. Wow
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
A serious question for all bloggers. When have democrats compromised on anything?
Whenever the word compromise comes up its always democrats saying republicans must compromise.
The country didn’t see democrats compromising before Nov elections.
Democrats had their chance and they seized it. There’s a huge backlash happening and they have no one to blame but themselves.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 8:55 am
It’s not a serious question. I may have to start rationing JBB comments. They are all the same, anyway,
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 9:43 am
It is a serious question.
and yes I do have an agenda its called pushback.
Most democrat blogs don’t allow it.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
“I’d love to see the post where I called you a racist”
could I ask which anonymous poster are you? you anonymous posters all look alike to me.
The comment was addressed to those who have.
If you haven’t then it probably wasn’t addressed to you.
Anonymous Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 10:16 am
Well, at least he hasn’t whined about LBJ yet. And what is a “democrat” blog?? Is that even english?
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 10:33 am
1. many democrats post here so they can bash republicans, calling them stupid etc. Let one guy stand up to you dems and for some reason your feathers get ruffled.
2. If you don’t want me to call you a pedophile then don’t call me a racist. I’m not afraid to rassel in the mud with the pigs.
and last but not least I can certainly understand why democrats don’t want me to bring up LBJ.
Anonymous Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 11:47 am
Just out of curiosity, is anything you say even vaguely based in reality? And I’m talking about reality on planet earth, not whatever passes for reality in that empty head of yours. I’d love to see the post where I called you a racist.
JohnBernardBooks says:
What I’ve come to realize is democrats have an agenda and its to take the country to the left as far as they can. The republican agenda is to undo the damage after every democrat administration. American voters have realized that agenda and are telling the republicans what they want and compromise isn’t it.
We’re saying no to the liberals/progressives/socialists agenda for bigger government.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
try reading a newspaper. who has compromised the most in the current debt ceiling debate? Repiglicans haven’t compromised from no new taxes for millionaires and their corporate overlords one iota.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 8:10 am
Here’s what really happened.
1. Speaker of the House and the presdient reached a deal and the Seanate dems killed it.
2 Then the Speaker of the House and the Senate Democrats reached a deal the President killed it.
3. The House passed CCB Act and the president promisewd to veto it and the Senate Dems killed it without a debate.
America is watching and they see the republicans leading and democrats playing politics.
Reply »
Tim Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
“What really happened”
We’re sorry JBB. We can’t debate you when you have a specialized set of facts known only to you. That’s not a Democrat problem or a Republican problem.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
“specialized set of facts known only to you.”
I know it is hard being uninformed isn’t it.
Rog says:
Here’s what I remember of President Reagan. He couldn’t even recognize his own cabinet members and he couldn’t remember authorizing Iran-Contra.
Reagan happened to be blessed with one of the greatest Chief of Staffs ever, James Baker, and a Democratic Speaker, Tip O’Neill who was willing to work with the Republicans.
Reply »
anita says:
The politics of the Reagan era were completely different than what we see today. The base of both parties was more flexible, and you had members in both parties with a willingness to cross over on various issues. The parties were in a transitional stage, and coalitions could be formed to address major issues without the threat of retribution by ‘primary’.
I believe the challenge for a President in this era is much greater than that Reagan faced. I did admire his communications skills and his recognition of image, but we elected an actor. He gave us what we wanted.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 10:52 pm
Unbelievable. Anita’s comments are typical of liberals unable to face the realities of the results Regan produced. He was a nice grandfather figure for America. He made us feel good again. And on and on. Yes, he was that figure and yes he did make us feel good again. But the man ushered in a sea change in American public policy. Although he was unable to significantly reverse the welfare state in his two terms, he stopped its growth cold. No new major entitlements were added and domestic discretionary spending growth dramatically slowed. His heirs elected in 1994 finally did reverse a key legacy of the welfare state–welfare itself. Moreover, he abandoned detente in favor of seeking VICTORY in the Cold War, though he pursued it judiciously in most instances with covert pressure, alliances, and economic might. He also devloved power to the states, reduced federal regulation, and effected the first real run at stemming the leftward tilt of the Warren Court. Yes Reagan could be pragmatic when he had to be, but Tip O’Niel fought Reagan at every turn. It was Reagan, a Republican senate, and a working conservative majority in the House that pushed the Reagan Revolution. Since he left office, historians have discovered reams of his personal writings reflecting a man who had been thinking deeply about political philosophy and public policy for decades. Indeed, anyone who has seen “The Speech” Reagan gave on Goldwater’s behalf in 1964 knows this. Lastly, Reagan is immensely popular with the public and has gained even in liberal academics’ estimation. He won smashing election victories twice with a relection that is one of the top 3-4 landslides in America history (49 states, 525 electoral votes, and 59% of the popular vote). The public has since consistently rated his one of and America’s best presidents ever. The public gets it wrong some of the time, but not usually that wrong for that long. And recent academic surveys (CSPAN’s poll of historians, for example) have put Reagan in or near the top ten presidents of all time. And he had immense challenges to face–inheriting stagflation, enduring what was then the worst recession since the Great Depression, a menacing Soviet threat, and a deep national malaise to name some. Anita’s comments smack of a smug liberal Austinite or limousine liberal resident of River Oaks, Houston or Preston Hollow, DallS who makes assumptions premised on delusions of liberal intellectual superiority over anyone who doesn’t fit an Obama like mold. Well, as an Austin native who can check a lot of the boxes off Anita probably finds impressive–high academic test scores, a year at a pretigious Eastern college before finishing at UT Austin’s Plan II honors program and graduating with honors from UT Law School, before going on to practice law at some very high-powered Texas law firms, I’ll take Reagan, the “amiable dunce” as Clarke Clifford called him and Anita obviously regards him, over Obama and others with his profile any day of the week. America would be very lucky at this point to find a man with half the leadership skill, wisdom, grace, unwavering love of country, and fortitude of Ronald Wilson Reagan. May his soul rest in peace.
Reply »
anon Reply:
July 27th, 2011 at 11:38 am
It’s unbelievable to me that The Law School is producing folks who offer sweeping, conclusory statements as persuasive argument. Standards must have dropped significantly since my days at Townes Hall.
This is just revisionist pablum and cites to popularity indexes. Lady GaGa “is immensely popular with the public” but . . .
And you brought up his “fortitude” — was his fortitude on display when he authorized the shipment of illegal weapons to Iran and the subsequent financial diversion of proceeds to the Nicaraguan Contras?
Reply »
anita Reply:
July 27th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Charles Alan Wright would have likely made Anonymous @ 10:52 cry, tear him/her apart for such a lazy effort.
Anonymous Reply:
July 27th, 2011 at 11:09 pm
Anon at 11:38 and Anita are living in a dream world rather than the one where the actual Reagan era and its aftermath took place. Every one of my entries in this posting chain beginning with the one that prompted Burka to agree Reagan was a great president, moving through the ones discussing the deficit and GDP numbers in the Reagan era and the differences between the Reagan and W. approaches to foreign policy, and ending with the one anon at 11:38 and Anita lamely responded to include references to indisputable historical facts, straightforward statistics, and informed commentary, including citing liberals and liberal leaning sources (Anthony Lewis, CSPAN survey of historians, PBS) that actually consider facts, as opposed to blindly clinging to a liberal worldview.
Indeed, all one need do is read anon at 11:38 to see he is the one who offers lazy and conclusory thoughts. Oh and then there is Anita’s brilliant comment supported by reason, facts, and figures: “I did admire his communications skills and his recognition of image, but we elected an actor. He gave us what we wanted.” Good grief. I am sure there is a great gig at Huffington Post where gems like that one would pass for insight.
Incidentally, I never had Professor Charles Alan Wright at UT Law but I was in the top 15-20% of the class all three years there and picked up reams of A+ and A grades and an Am Jur (Dean’s Achievement Award) in Con Law along the way from his colleagues. Were Professor Wright alive today, I’d have no fear of engaging in a classroom with him and would also be wiling to simultaneously rip anon at 11:38 and Anita to pieces (based on their comments here, the latter task would be easy and not much fun).
In sum, I have wasted enough time with “thinkers” like anon at 11:38 and Anita whose comments patently reflect ideological blinders impervious to reasoned and supported arguments. Indeed, as the Gipper pointed out on occasion, facts are stubborn things–smug liberals in his time did not let facts get in the way of how they wished the world worked either. Anon at 11:38 and Anita, I suspect you are permanent residents of smug liberal pretend land. Enjoy. Ignorance is bliss.
Red says:
Black helicopters are circling now.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
July 26th, 2011 at 8:20 pm
In the time it took to type 5 words in a juvenile comment, you could have gone to You Tube and started watching a 10 minute trailer on the documentary “A Carefully Crafted Hoax” or “Conspiracy of Silence.”
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=carefully+crafted+hoax&aq=f
Watch it and you will learn a lot about stuff this is too radioactively true to be in the MSM … yet.
Reply »
anita Reply:
July 27th, 2011 at 11:40 am
Some things only deserve 5 words in a juvenile comment.
Reply »
Robert Morrow says:
Here is a must read book by Al Martin – The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran-Contra Insider.
Al Martin was one of the financial guys in the 1980′s Iran-Contra scandal. And he goes into detail over his dealings Jeb Bush and Oliver North in particular.
http://www.amazon.com/Conspirators-Secrets-Iran-Contra-Insider/dp/097100420X
Jeb and Oliver North come off just horribly in this book. Stuff like this – extremely valuable info – is carefully scrubbed from the MSM. Not even the “liberal” media outlets MSNBC or NY Times or Huffington Post would touch this stuff with a 10 foot pole.
Again, because it is too discrediting and damaging to the elites who run the country.
Google “Barry Seal Oliver North” and you will learn a lot on why Barry Seal died and who killed him. Barry Seal was the legendary CIA drug smuggler and ace pilot. He was killed in Feb, 1986 outside his halfway house in New Orleans.
Some folks (you figure out who) were very concerned about what he might say in court about his gargantuan CIA drug smuggling.
Reply »
longleaf says:
Speaking of people named Barry, there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence that “Barry” Obama has been CIA his entire adult life. It would explain how he “came out of nowhere” to become President.
He’s a real “Nowhere Man.” The song fits.
I think his handlers had hoped he would be a better leader than this, but he’s not through yet. He still may pull off the much-ballyhooed Grand Bargain to do away with what’s left of the New Deal and Great Society. That’s what he was hired to do by Wall Street and the MIC. That and to keep the wars and occupations going while trying to put a smiling face on them.
Reply »
Robert Morrow Reply:
July 27th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
I think Barack Obama has been CIA a very long time. He was probably sent to Afghanistan in the early 1980′s by a CIA front.
Wayne Madsen has been investigating this stuff. I have a friend who knows Wayne Madsen. He said “I like a lot of smart friends and Wayne Madsen is the smartest guy I know.”
http://www.infowars.com/bombshell-barack-obama-conclusively-outed-as-cia-creation/
Wayne Madsen is also the one who went to the Chicago gay community and pretty much confirmed Larry Sinclair’s gay allegations about Obama.
This is what I mean about the MSM media being controlled across the spectrum from left to right.
You are not going to have FOX, WSJ, Wash Post, NY Times, MSNBC “out” Barack Obama as CIA or homosexual.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
A nonpartisian computer using a forecasting model called Pollyvote:
“When they tested PollyBio on the past 29 presidential elections – from 1896 to 2008 – the forecast matched the actual outcome 27 times. The two it missed:Jimmy Carter’s 1976 election and Bill Clinton’s 1992 election.”
“Perry was the only one among 14 GOP candidates to come out ahead of Obama. Compared side-by-side on the PollyVote bio index,Perry came out with 21 points to Obama’s 20,translating to 50.3 percent of votes for Perry.”
even computers are racist.
Reply »
Texun says:
In the meantime, what’s happening with the polls in Iowa and elsewhere? After reading the canonization of St. Ronald and the unveiling of yet another sinister group of conspirators, I guess the original topic of the thread is dead.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
July 28th, 2011 at 12:24 am
Citing a litany of Reagan’s tremendous accomplishments supported by evidence in response to ill-informed individuals such as the chap who “hated Reagan as a kid” and Anita and anon at 11:38 is not canonizing St. Anyone. It is simply setting straight the record on this posting chain regarding one of America’s greatest presidents.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Rick Perry and the extreme right are about to set us into default. Anyone please answer this: can the US House become like the Texas House, where a coaltion of moderate D’s and R’s could elect a Speaker? I wish that could happen. The tea baggers are making me sick to my stomach. I am losing business with talk of US goverment shutting down!
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Tea Party = Anarchy. I can’t answer your question but makes alot of sens to me. It is obvious to me that the Tea Party Hacks – yes a bunch of Hacks – have never run a business. My guess is that July 2011 will be seen by most businesses as a very bad month. I for one have heard customer after customer tell me they are waiting to move forward after they figure it all out in Washington. The Tea Pary hasn’t a clue. You don’t scare the country into submission. I have voted Republican for decades, but that is over. I won’t vote for a party ruled by anarchists.
Reply »
Democrat for decades says:
I have been a Democrat for decades, but the current Democrats in Washington, DC are scaring the country with their runaway spending and TRILLION dollar deficits every year (Obama’s budget this year showed deficits over $10 TRILLION dollars over the next 10 years).
Democrats = Bankruptcy.
I have been a Democrat for decades, but I won’t vote for a party ruled by people are spending the USA into Bankruptcy.
Reply »
Buy Made from Us! says:
I have been exploring for a little bit for any high-quality articles or blog posts on this kind of space . Exploring in Yahoo I eventually stumbled upon this web site. Reading this information So i am glad to show that I have a very just right uncanny feeling I came upon just what I needed. I so much definitely will make sure to do not fail to remember this website and provides it a glance regularly.
Reply »