It turns out that local Democratic politicians have been trolling for votes in theaters showing Fahrenheit 911. This includes not only candidates for DA, but also a candidate for the University of Colorado Board of Regents.

Typically, the reporter refers to the movie as "a documentary critical of the Bush administration during the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and subsequent war in Iraq," which is something like saying that the Communist Manifesto was a research paper critical of Queen Victoria's Indian policy. Calling it a "documentary critical of Bush" suggests Edward R. Murrow and responsible journalism with a point of view. The phrase is easy to write, and a substitute for thought.

Nowhere in the story does the reporter ask the candidates what they think of the movie.
Ostensibly, candidates are going there expecting to find sympathetic voters, and the reporter certainly found it target-rich. But they must also understand that their being there endorses the film and its message. Given the film's attacks on the Patriot Act, one is especially tempted to ask the DA candidates about their resolve to cooperate with federal terror investigations. Given the movie's D-Day like assault on the truth, one wonders exactly what Regents candidate Mike Carrigan thinks the mission of a university is.

When candidates associate themselves with propaganda, they should at least be asked whether or not they support its contentions. One can be sure that if Republican candidates had been stumping outside showing of The Passon, they'd be asked to explain their presence at an anti-Semitic movie. (The anti-Semitism would be presumed, not proven.) The Atlanta-Journal Constitution did a story on Cynthia McKinney running for her old seat, and she unabashedly talked about her admiration for the movie, its assertions, and its message. Do these candidates want to rowing on the same oars as Cynthia "Bush Knew" McKinney?