[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Mouse: Why should Michael Moore (who I can take or leave) have to question/expose all sides equally to have credibility? He's a "liberal" and undermining centre-right groups and interests is what he has specialised in and does best. It's a bit like criticising a consultant dermatologist because he does not dedicate equal time to performing open heart surgery.

I disagree, Mouse. A more accurate comparison would be to say that Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh will gain my respect when they BLAST the right-conservatives with the same unadulterated zeal with which they attack the left.

Of the three, I find O'Reilly amusing sometimes, but the very first time I saw him (or actually his publicist) on TV, I thought the guy was a total jerk with an over-inflated sense of self-importance. I'm sure most liberals would agree with that assessment. I consider Moore and Limbaugh both to be completely intolerable.

I also don't want to seem like I'm dragging Clinton out of the closet and throwing him back at the liberals as a counter to the attack Moore made on President Bush. It's just that Clinton is the ONLY recent example we have by which to judge the actions of a Democratic liberal President.

I do find it laughable, though, that a man who has admitted to committing perjury in a grand jury investigation is not considered a hypocrite. Bush may be evasive and secretive, but Clinton would (and DID) sit in his chair, look the American public in the eye, and lie through his teeth.