Originally posted by infuryum:
I think most people will agree with you that we have always fought to protect Michael Moore's freedom to do what he does. That's what's beautiful about it.

However, simply because his methods are protected and they are his right doesn't make them tactful, tasteful or any less dishonest or offensive. There are better (and obviously more effective) ways to protest.



Could he / should he be more tactful - to be sure; more tasteful - absolutely; less dishonest - I guess that may depend on which side of his fence you're on; less offensive - for sure ...

But could he be "better and more effective" - I don't think so. Moore has made millions being a protestor, gained worldwide notoriety or acclaim (again, depending ...) and then, aside from the candidates themselves, I can't think of too many people who were more visible during the campaign.

Think of him what you will, but Michael Moore has found the formula for effectivenessp; and I think the ultimate proof of that is the level of contempt Bush supporters have of him. I'll bet that's one way Moore knows if he's doing a "good job" or not.