Where exactly has Stark “waffled” on health care? Have you any evidence, or is that just another false defamation of his character? If you have proof; put it up instead of simply making base allegations without any evidence.

Time was, demands for the signing of a pledge to demonstrate purity on an issue was a revolting tactic of the Far Right; abstinence pledges, “Right to Life” pledges, McCarthy-era loyalty oaths, all come to mind. Apparently now some on the Left feel that this sort of tactic – demanding someone sign a pledge and then falsely impugning their character if they don’t – is also acceptable. I disagree.

To be perfectly honest, the notion that a bunch of johnny-come-latelys think they can command those of us who have been working for single-payer for decades to sign some trumped-up pledge or else they’ll make up lies and spread false and defamatory claims about us is offensive. Deeply offensive.

I’ve known Pete Stark for a very long time. He is one of, if not the most honest and compassionate people in all of government. Whether Stark signs your little “pledge” or not won’t make a whit of difference in how he votes or what he advocates. He has been entirely consistent on this subject, and the good news is that he has enough integrity and focus to ignore such puerile behavior and continue to pursue universal health care as he has for his entire career in office.

This post is false on its face, the allegations made are repugnant, and it should be repudiated by anyone with a shred of decency.

Representative Stark has been an unwavering supporter of a public health care program for many years,

then he should have no problem signing this pledge

fyi – we raised our kids in his district and were pleased to have his usually progressive representation. his waffling on this has been a huge disappointment for us.

Jane hasn’t defamed anyone here. She’s asking why a career long advocate for universal healthcare wont step up and help provide a backstop to watered down, corporate friendly language in a major piece of legislation – and this family wants an answer

Nationwide

Day 1

Accountable to Congress and The People

period

The American Podiatric Medical Association PAC represents podiatrists, podiatric surgeons, and students. I’ve worked with many podiatrists on a research and clinical care level for many years, and as a group they are as dedicated to patient care and welfare as any other professional health care workers. They generally provide services at rates less than MDs, and are of course concerned that their ability to practice is not threatened by any new legislation just as are nurses, technicians and other health care providers. Of course they have an “interest” in health care legislation, and have as much right to lobby on health care reform as you or I.

The American Occupational Therapy PAC advocates for occupational therapists, and for their patients. Their web page (http://www.aota.org/News/AOTANews/Health-Reform-Update.aspx) highlights their interests in lobbying for establishing a high level of care for the elderly, the disabled, children, the mentally ill and other patient groups that too often receive short shrift from government funding.

The American Dietetic Association PAC lobbies for nutritionists and dieticians, and advocates expansion of education on food safety and nutrition. From their web site (http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/advocacy.html):

“Members of the American Dietetic Association, experts in food, nutrition and health, work on a broad range of issues to advance the nutritional status of people here and around the world. We focus on seven priority areas: aging, child nutrition, food and food safety, health literacy and nutrition advancement, Medical Nutrition Therapy, nutrition research and monitoring and weight management for health.”

The American Speech—Language-Hearing Association PAC advocates for speech therapists, who work mainly with the deaf and hearing impaired, those with congenital speech impediments, and those whose language ability has been impaired by stroke or by accident. From their web site (http://www.asha.org/advocacy/federal/pac/):

“ASHA-PAC provides financial support to candidate committees for the U.S. House and Senate that recognize the importance of speech-language pathology and audiology services and who demonstrate concern for the rights of all citizens to receive these services.”

So there you have the sneaky evil intentions of these PACs: advocating for health care providers, not insurance fat cats, and for the right of the disabled, the impaired, the ill, the damaged, the injured, children and the aged to receive decent nutrition and quality medical care. How awful.

Yet you characterize these decent people, and the entirely good and humane and compassionate and honest Pete Stark, as somehow carrying on a nefarious scheme to damage the cause of providing a meaningful public health care opportunity. In doing so you defame these organizations and their members, and you also defame a good and decent man. Pete Stark has been an unwavering advocate for universal public health for decades, as have I, and I stand proudly with him in his efforts to see it finally realized. I am grateful for his unstinting service to his district and to our country, and as a constituent I support him in office without reservation.

Jane, you have badly missed the mark here, by repeating false innuendo without checking the facts. You should retract your suggestions of inappropriate influence on the part of these organizations. You also owe Pete Stark an apology for suggesting that this fine and honest man is corruptable, and one to your readers as well for seriously misleading them.

Wasting time and energy attacking a good progressive – nice work everyone! Feel good about yourselves? I hope you are not under any delusions that this is useful.

Gross exaggeration and name calling has it’s place in political discourse: coming from the mouths of republicans.