Well, can't comment on the author. But let's look at your 3 points.
1. It's a strike fighter: there we agree. What is the problem? That it is supposed to repace all other aircrafts. So it must be able to dogfight too. Sure it has a longer range but in this example the F-16 had additional tanks so that should even it up. Only it didn't. And yes the A10 can't dog fight and isn't designed for it. But the A10 doesn't need to because it was meant to be supported by F-16, F18 and F-15 aircrafts that would do everything else except close air support and hitting 'hard targets'. The F-35 is supposed to do all this by itself...
2. Indeed BVR is gaining ground and is getting more and more important. Question is: do you want to send out your pilots in an aircraft that can't dogfight? Especially if you know that it is slower than most enemy aircrafts? That means that it could be hunted down and killed without any way to escape.
3. I can't comment on the costs of the current air fleet in the US. I do know that my country (Belgium) and our close neighbour (the Netherlands) are both struggeling to find some way to make it appear as if the f-35 is affordable. On the other hand they are looking at 'synergies' like defending the combined airspace with only half the fighters in order to be able to pay for it. The cost of the f-35 is significantly higher than that of the competition (according to our media).