Adam Sparks has written yet another poorly thought out article for the SF Chronicle.
Here's what I posted about it on ba.politics.
> A centerpiece of Kerry's campaign is to make access to
> drugs and medicine affordable, but, when you hear the word
> affordable, hold on to your wallets. It means a health-
> care system that will rely on billions of dollars
> of tax increases to prop up. But, taking a page from
> John Edwards' "two Americas," as far as Kerry's concerned,
> only the rich should pay the taxes.
Neither John Edwards nor John Kerry have ever said that only the rich should pay taxes.
> But don't relax yet; "the rich" includes anyone with a
> job. Increasing taxes for just the wealthiest 1 percent, or even the
> richest 10 percent, will not pay for a singe-payer health-care
> system, which would cost several trillion dollars annually and would
> federalize one-fifth of the economy.
A single payer system would be much cheaper than the current system we have, and would decrease the health care costs for everyone.
Take a look at the recent thread in ca.politics for more details, or look at it using Google at http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3184994119d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&safe=off&selm=87vfgp6liv.fsf%40localhost.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me
So, if you want cheaper and better health care, vote for Kerry. If you want to talk about this topic more, I suggest responding to that thread.
The rest of the article is just as incorrect as the section on health care.
The next section is titled "Not Much Bounce" and it claims the Democratic convention was "a grand flop". Far from it. Although the writer is correct that most polls didn't show a bounce in Kerry supporters, the convention definitely did shore up the party, and got everyone involved focused on the same message. Conventions are for cementing the messages of the party. The Democratic convention did that very well, probably better than any in the last 20 years.
The next section, "A Convoluted Message" tries very hard to make the case that Kerry's speech at the convention sound difficult to understand. It wasn't.
As if seeing the speech, or reading it weren't enough proof of its clear message, the article hardly talks about the speech. There are 4 paragraphs in this section and only one talks about Kerry's speech. I would think if it were difficult to understand, this writer wouldn't have missed a chance to tell us how.
The other paragraphs in this section misstate Kerry's stand on issues. Here's a great example. Kerry is personally against abortion. He believes that life begins as conception. He acknowledges that this is a religious belief. He doesn't believe he should use his political power to force his religious beliefs on others, so he has consistently supported a woman's right to choose an abortion. The article writer says that Kerry has no cohesive message because of this. I think it's a very clear message - Kerry respects every person's right to their own religious convictions, and refuses to force his upon the country. If you aren't familiar with this kind of conviction, just read the Constitution. It's what the framer's intended.
The next section, "A Confusing Vietnam Record", is just annoying. He uses a 35 year old quote by Kerry on his service during Vietnam. Then he insults him for telling people about his service. It does matter that John Kerry served in Vietnam and George Bush did not.
He then moves into a discussion about the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth". I won't spend the time writing up why they are a poor source, I'll leave that up to others - here's a good article to look at on it - "Anti-Kerry vets say 'lies' drove them to act".
Then comes the incorrect statements quoted above. He then goes on a tirade about John Edwards doing everything possible to get a good verdict for his clients. What should he, as a lawyer, have done? Presented a bad case?
He then goes into the last section, "History on Bush's Side". He mentions that no war president has ever lost an election in the US. I'm not sure that's true (President Johnson didn't run for re-election, mostly due to the Vietnam War, there's probably other cases), but even if it is, so what? Every election is different, and this war is definitely different, since it's the first preemptive war in our history.
He then goes off on a rant about claims that Bush has lied when it came to the war in Iraq. The writer says, basically, it's not Bush's fault, it was faulty intelligence. Sorry, that sad excuse doesn't fly. The reality is that as the President, it was Bush's responsibility to ensure that such a provocative action as making a preemptive attack on a sovereign country, had iron-clad intelligence backing it up. He didn't.
You know, I'm all for the Chron having editorial content from the right, but can't they find someone better than a poor Rush imitator?
