Originally Posted by
jhuka
It's interesting that some of this thread became about Michael Moore. I'm a conservative in many ways, but I looked at many of the things that he asserts both in F. 9/11 and Sicko and think he backs them up quite well. I've never heard him "rail" against capitalism--this is an interpretation; I think that he's done a service for the country, frankly. In some things he is naive--in his portrayal of Cuban medical care, for instance (I couldn't disagree with him more here, coming from a family that survived communism) but I also understood that he was making a point about how broken our medical programs are here, and in this he is absolutely right.
Any in-depth look at Coulter, however, shows quite quickly that she is a flim-flam artist. Her speciality is in quoting "liberal" journalists by taking what they've said completely out of context...and then adding a sweeping statement, such as "even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do." Or: "Liberals seek to destroy sexual differentiation in order to destroy morality."
My point is that it is important to look IN DEPTH at these characters, rather than engaging in sweeping statements also; Moore and Coulter are not at all, in my mind, in the same category. I know it is popular for conservatives to beat up on Moore, to use him to "equalize" the foolishness of people like Coulter, but they are falling into a trap. For a long time, conservative thought has been guided by the sentiments of Karl Rove. I think history will judge him a criminal, as it has one of his gurus, Atwater. History will judge Coulter as a sad fool. I think it will be much more kind to Michael Moore, and with good reason. He did his homework. It is time for us to do ours.