"That article was just plain inaccurate on a number of fronts," Rybchuk said. "They (American journalists) don't even know capital of Canada -- let alone the details of Harper policies."For the record, the commentary in question doesn't state anything about the capital of Canada...so there's absolutely nothing to justify Rybchuk's comment on that point. And it's hard to figure out why Rybchuk would choose to tar all American writers (or at least multiple commentators) with the same brush when the article in question was written by only one person.
As for Harper's policies, the Times commentary casts Harper as "pro-free trade, pro-Iraq war, anti-Kyoto, and socially conservative", and says that he would "push to cut taxes and spending and the regulatory burden on Canada's business sector". For the next set of debates, I'd like to see Harper discuss which of these positions he actually disagrees with. At best he might try to argue that he's not really for the Iraq war, and hasn't explicitly stated that he'll cut spending...but that hardly makes the commentary inaccurate as to the general thrust of the campaign.
That said, I should note in fairness that the commentary was evidently wrong on one point: the "crude anti-American rhetoric" isn't coming only from the Liberal side of the aisle.
No comments:
Post a Comment