Posted on 09/18/2011 7:03:25 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Here is one more thing Rick Perry and some Democrats have in common: staunchly supporting AT&T's proposed merger with T-Mobile.
Yet another thing they have in common? Receiving generous contributions from AT&T in recent years.
On Thursday, North Carolina Congressman Heath Shuler joined 15 other House Democrats to write a pro-AT&T T-Mobile merger letter to President Obama. The letter rehashed AT&T's PR spin about how the deal would create jobs and bring more high-speed wireless coverage to America.
Save the Internet pointed out that these Democratic politicians have collectively received $570,000 in campaign contributions from AT&T.
"Either these members of Congress actually believe in the fantasies AT&T cooks up, or they are so worried that AT&T will turn off its spigot of campaign contributions that they'll sign anything the telecom puts in front of them," wrote the coalition.
GOP 2012 hopeful Rick Perry, meanwhile, wrote a pro-AT&T T-Mobile merger letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in his official capacity as the Texas Governor in May. Perry touted Texas' record of job creation and also parroted AT&T's PR spin of creating more jobs in the letter.
The National Journal, however, highlighted that Perry received over $500,000 from AT&T's political action committee over the last decade.
"This is just one more example of Rick Perry's pay-to-play network that represents the same old type of lobbyist-first politics," Ty Matsdorf, spokesman for American Bridge 21st Century, a Democratic opposition research organization, told National Journal.
Any way you slice it, the proposed merger between AT&T and T-Mobile is a bad deal for America.
The merger will not bring high-speed coverage to America faster; competition will.
The merger will not guarantee more jobs; common sense and historic examples tell us that mergers usually kill jobs.
Does AT&T promise more jobs in the long-term? So did Vice President Joe Biden with Solyndra.
The merger, moreover, will stifle innovation and raise prices for American consumers in the long-term, even if AT&T temporarily promises to keep T-Mobile's cheap subscription rates.
Shrinking an already concentrated industry from four major players to three - while catapulting one of them to hold a meaningful size advantage over the others - is bad for America and bad for capitalism.
Any basic economics class will tell you that.
It's called being anti-competitive; it's why the Department of Justice broke up Ma Bell in the first place in the 1980s.
"The facts don't support this merger, and AT&T knows it. So it's turning to old tricks like getting its paid-for cronies to sign a nonsensical letter of support. Repeating lies ad nauseam is standard stuff for AT&T, but we should expect more from our elected officials," wrote Save the Internet.
Yet no examples. You lose.
[Have you noticed the more deranged and extreme the Perry haters have gotten ?]
Actually I’m seeing disturbing trends among the Perrywinkles who seem unwilling to allow the vetting process to proceed and want an immediate coronation. That sends up warning bells right there.
examples of what? You’re argument has no merit so you start demanding examples? good grief do you know anything about these companies?
Funny how Bain Capital (founded by Mitt Romney) donates 84% of their contributions to DemocRats in 2012 is not mentioned here.
See for yourself:
http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php
It seems the problem is human nature. Everything we do is subject to moral failings, including our practice of economic theory and the establishment of a political framework.
I’ve always been so worked up about Marxism and its totalitarian, anticapitalist agenda, I haven’t paid enough attention to the problems of crony capitalism.
But envy and greed both come from the same pit of evil. They motivate dishonesty in the crony capitalist and in the socialist, as both attempt to hide from the light of truth.
And in a political context, the encroachment on liberty by both crony capitalism and big government are the antithesis to the intentions of our founding fathers.
What nonsense. Vetting candidates is good. Perry was elected three times and has been Governor for 11 years. Over the years I've read all the news items about Perry. His call for Texas succession; his EO on Gardasil; his opposition to SocSec; charges of crony capitalism; his support for the Trans-Texas corridor; and his friendliness towards La Raza. Perry has been vetted his entire career and he's still getting elected by a conservative electorate in Texas.
Any objective observer of politics right now understands with Bachmann in meltdown and Cain fading fast this race is quickly boiling down to either the liberal Romney or the conservative Perry. If the choice is between those two, I know who'll I be voting for. How about you?
Well said.
When the people in power make the law mean whatever they want it means the individual has no rights.
govt should stay out of this business decision
That's pretty much the way I see it as well. I just don't see Palin getting in the race, which is a shame because her establishment-fighting methods are what we need now. I don't see anyone else being able to take on Romney other than Perry. That makes it a rather stark choice.
Neither do I.
The ideal candidate doesn't exist. For the last 20 years the GOP establishment has been giving us the likes of GHWB, Bob Dole, Dubya, McCain and now Romney and we've been nominating them for good or bad. While instinctive on some issues, none of these guys were/are true conservatives. Romney being the worst of the bunch. Perry is far from perfect but he's s fighter and someone who will push the conservative agenda. Someone who won't back down from Obama and the leftwing. Imo, Perry's hard edge rhetoric is just what we need.
[this race is quickly boiling down to either the liberal Romney or the conservative Perry. If the choice is between those two, I know who’ll I be voting for. How about you? ]
Palin still has a month left. I will never vote for Romney. Perry I will vote for, and then vote with my money and get it out of the country. Even Palin would face huge problems which are unsolvable except thrugh a giant crash.
From the way you were posting, you gave me the impression you had rejected Perry based on the innuendo, rumor and gossip of corruption.
Perry is an unapologetic Texan and his decisions for the last 11 years have been based on what he believes is best for Texas. Perry is a lifelong politician so his decisions weren't always right. Then again, I don't know any candidate running for potus on the GOP side over the last 23 years who has a better executive conservative governing record then Perry.
Here is the problem, no matter whether Perry or Palin is elected. It is two years before they can do anything. Deficit reduction is trivial against the fact that the fedgov is spending 40% more than it takes in. That means we are totally hosed for at least five years and maybe a decade or more.
So I’m not saying Perry isn’t a fine conservative if this were normal times. I’m just saying I’m not sure at this point his good ole boy style, which has its advantages, will work this time around. So I will hold out for Palin as long as I can.
Lets be objective here. Again, I don't know any major GOP candidate running for potus over the last 23 years who has a better executive conservative governing record then Rick Perry. And that includes Sarah Palin. After 3 years in the public eye, Palin does have higher name recognition then Perry. After only 4 weeks in the race my guess is Perry's name recognition will rise significantly.
We've had two-decades of wimpy moderates as the GOP nominees. In 2012 the GOP needs a tough, no holds barred, straight shooter and Perry fits the bill. Perry will fight for the America, he will stand up to Obama and the leftwing. The economy is in the toilet and looks like it will remain the major issue into next year. If that holds true, Perry has a good chance to beat Obama. If Romney is the nominee, Obama will win, no matter what.
The major objective of the GOP and its nominee is to remove Obama from the WH! Then get policies in place which can turn the economy around and get govt off our backs. It took Obama 2-1/2 years to get us into this mess. It will take at least that long to get us out of this mess.
[The major objective of the GOP and its nominee is to remove Obama from the WH! ]
This is where I will disagree. For example, I will work against a Romney candidacy because he would enshrine the downfall.
At the moment I would tolerate a Perry candidacy, but you haven’t convinced me he is a saint.
The situation is unsustainable and headed for collapse so from my perspective halfway measures will only exacerbate the fall.
Dittos.
>>>>>At the moment I would tolerate a Perry candidacy, but you haven’t convinced me he is a saint.
LOL Perry is no saint. Neither is Palin. And neither was Reagan. Wake up and get real.
Btw, what half way measures are you referring to?
Look pal, my entire point revolves around Romney v Perry for the nomination. We agree, its not Romney. Palin isn't running. WTF do you want? There is no ideal candidate, period!
I'm still waiting for you to name one major GOP candidate over the last 23 years who has a better executive conservative governing record then Rick Perry. Try to be objective.
Lots of freepers showing there true colours with their nutter posts these days, aren’t they ?
There is another storm brewing about a company called Light Squared that wants to build lots of WiFi transmission towers across the country but the Pentagon says that will interfere with their satellite communications. A key general has been asked by the WH to change his testimony about the deal. LS has WH connections and this ATT&T merger would be a threat to them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.