because you know the comparison will be made, how does he differ from, say, Michael Moore, other than political affiliation?
I happened to like MM, while understanding that he can get a bit hyperbolic.
Both use the dishonest tactic of the leading inference question. Followed up by implication by accusation.
Both use carefully edited list of facts and videos to facilitate their bias.
On the second point; Dinesh is so extreme that he will casually forget even the most non contraversial of facts.
But when these fail; Dinesh just lies.
examples from the film:
-D'Souza claims that TARP and the federal bailout were programs that "Obama launched." Both programs began under the Bush administration.
-D'Souza claims Obama went by the name Barack to adopt his father's "African identity," but Obama has explicitly said his name change "was not some assertion of my African roots."
-D'Souza insists that references in Obama speeches to a "nuclear-free world" are evidence of "anti-colonialism," but Ronald Reagan made multiple references to the same concept.
-D'Souza claimed that Obama supported the release of the Lockerbie bomber because he sometimes "supports the release of terrorists who claim to be fighting wars of liberation against American aggression." But the Obama administration formally opposed the release in an official letter from the State Department.
-D'Souza claimed that Obama referred to BP as "British Petroleum" in a May 2010 speech. He never did.
He particularly obviously lies when he's not in control of the editing, watch him in a debate about Atheism