I guess since Fox came around, "balanced" is now a buzzword. But it isn't the issue here. The problem is not that the claims in the film aren't balanced, it's that they're not true.
Who cares if they are untrue. Unless they constitute slander and/or libel, one can say pretty much anything they want about a 'public' person.
The beauty of the 1st ammendment is to allow people/political parties to compete in the marketplace of ideas/opinions.
While some may claim that the mainstream media has a monopoly, that is simply untrue with the advent of Fox, Rush and the Net.
Given the tools at our disposal, if we can't persuade enough people to vote for Bush (and endorse his Iraq policy), then we don't deserve to have him as president.