Michael Moore: Documentarian For Truth or Political Liability?

After a somber handful of postings on his website since the election, Michael Moore claims that "the official mourning period is over." He is announcing that planning has begun on "Fahrenheit 9/11½."

"We want to document and commercialize it. Fifty-one percent of the American people lacked information (in this election) and we want to educate and enlighten them. They weren't told the truth. We're communicators and it's up to us to start doing it now."

I actually saw "Fahrenheit 9/11" as well as most of Michael Moore's other documentaries although I use the word loosely. What he calls a documentary, I call an extremely cynical and ironic attempt at manipulating people's emotions with very suspect editing.

Don't believe me? Read the following very lengthy article written by Dave Kopel entitled "Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11". It is a point-by-point chronicle of the deceits that Moore perpetrates in order to make the case against George W. Bush. Incidentally, Kopel wrote a similar piece for the National Review Online about "Bowling for Columbine." It is entitled "Bowling Truths." I would also recommend reading Chrirstopher Hitchens Slate.com piece, "Unfairenheit 9/11."

The real problem with Moore is that he is becoming what he continues to rail against. He claims to be a humble man from Flint, MI but that was over once he made his ridiculous "Best Documentary" acceptance speech at the Academy Awards in 2003. At that moment he became one of the Hollywood elite that always seems to know what's best for the rest of us. He also continuously castigates the rich for not sharing their hard earned wealth. Moore has become very rich himself as a result of his films, so why is okay for him to be successful and wealthy while it is unacceptable for corporate CEOs? These are just some of the contradictions addressed on mooreexposed.com.

The bottom line is that as an American he has the right to speak his views but he is doing so at the expense of his credibility and the causes that he claims to support. I don't really think that anyone decided not to vote for Bush because of "Fahrenheit 9/11." People who agree with Moore saw it and loved it. People who disagree saw it, hated it and then went to see the "Passion of the Christ." I think that his outspoken anti-Bush rhetoric coupled with others from the Hollywood elite actually mobilized a contingent of Bush voters who otherwise would have stayed home on Nov. 2. For that, I can only believe that in 2006 and 2008, any association with Michael Moore will be a costly liability for the Democratic Party.