"Values": why Michael Moore, not Howard Stern?

One thing I'm not getting with the "moral values" voters, why do they seem to object much much more to Michael Moore than to Howard Stern?

I have yet to hear one pundit include Stern in the list of offensive entertainment elites, while they almost always cite Moore.

Moore's work doesn't really even focus on moral issues so much, and he doesn't rely on profanity or sex or blasphemy or anything else. He mostly focuses on economic and class issues.

Moore I think has been married to the same woman for 20 years, I haven't heard of any scandal involving his behavior. He doesn't do drugs, I think he says he's never smoked pot (not sure about that), and he discourages people from doing drugs.

Howard Stern, on the other hand, seems to me like someone whom a conservative person would naturally have a beef against, for obvious reasons, you don't even have to think about it. I'm sure most of them do indeed abhor him big-time, but it didn't really enter the discussion in the media, even though Stern railed daily against Bush.

And in the post-election analysis, Stern still is not a significant part of the discussion, certainly nowhere near as much as Moore, and there's really no good reason for this to be the case.

My conclusion: "values" is a total sham. Moore represents a threat, Stern doesn't. Stern arguably aids their cause, because it's so stupid and content-free.

most of us out here in the Red areas do not hear Howard Stern? I never have, I do know he has a TV spot but the only time I turned that on I saw him with his face planted in someones ass so I wasn't really all that interested (not a prude, just not interested). Moore is all over the place. Just wondering, I really have no other answer.

I never heard of Howard Stern until I got my first sat dish. He is only available through E!TV in my part of the US. Recently, I heard he was supposed to be on a Houston channel. I haven't found it yet so I'm not for sure.

Moore hits too close to home, tells truths that these folks know to be truths and cannot stand.Ive heard people rail against Fahrenheit 911 and when asked if they've actually seen it say no......

Moore=using your brain
using your brain= they're out of business.

Pundits are fixated on politics. Stern's involvement in politics has been slight, so he is essentially off of their radar. Moore on the other hand is a very political guy. Moore's opposition to the conservative agenda is as well known as Charleton Heston's opposition to restriction of firearms. For both of these men their politics is currently on display for all to see. In other words: they stand for something?

Stern's opposition to Bush is something of far less consequence. Similar to Mike Ditka's support of Republicans. Stern will always (or at least for the forseeable future) be known for crude radio humor, while Ditka will always be known for his career in football. Because of this they really don't mean much to pundits and will be overlooked.

knows that MM presents a credible argument whereas Stern is merely offensive to the "respectable people."