I came across an article in the op/ed section of the paper a couple days ago that I wish I still had and could draw actual quotes from, but I don't and I can't, so I'll have to summarize what the author was trying to say: Michael Moore was not effective during the 2004 campaign. He had his Slacker Tour, he made speeches, he made Fahrenheit 9/11 and claimed that any undecided person who saw the film would come out of the theatre with the intent of voting for Kerry...but did he actually sway anyone? I'm inclined to say that if he did, it was a very small, perhaps even insignificant number of people.

But don't worry, this isn't another Michael Moore rant...those can be found on Your Say In Government pages 3, 7, 8, 14, 16, and 18. What I'm wondering is whether or not openly one-sided political pundits are ever effective in swaying voters. Liberal figures like Michael Moore and Al Franken have a reputation of being snooty, arrogant, and condescending, while conservative figures like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Michael Savage had a reputation of being total assbags. Do you think these stereotypes hold true, and do you think the unofficial "party spokespeople" I mentioned have any influence over undecided voters?

A few personal examples: a left-wing friend of mine has somewhat conservative parents that were allegedly undecided about the election, and she finally talked them into sitting through Fahrenheit 9/11. They said they were "very touched by the film", and would "take it into consideration on voting day". On November 3, however, they were gloating that Bush had won.

A woman who had voted straight-ticket Republican all her life went to see Ann Coulter speak in my city. She then wrote an editorial about how Ann had managed to get her to vote for Kerry. I'm not exactly sure what Ann did to swing her over to the opposite side, but my guess is she let a little too much of the ice-water that runs through her veins out. On a sidenote, at that same rally, Ann got a pie thrown at her, although it missed her face and hit her shoulder.

So, what are your thoughts? I'd be particularly interested to hear what people who were undecided or near-undecided until the end think/thought of these figures.

Every thing in this world is one-sided.

I believe Moore and Savage alike are one sided.

The thing about Moore that I hate is that he's a hypocrite, a liar, and just another ill-informing celebrity(not to say all celebs don't know politics)

Al Franken is much more alert when it comes to politics but at the same time he can be a pretty big douche bag.

Savage isn't a conservative who simply backs all republican moves. In fact, he bashed the president every single day before the elections and is still bashing him for his moves about illegal immigration. But the downside of Savage is that he can be a little to extreme similar to Al Franken but on different sides of the spectrum.

quote:

---

-+-newbies are niave, oldbies are just plain mean-+-

---

Naïve, and veterans. Anyways, you are completely right.

I think they're effective to a certain degree. You can't exagerate or else it'll just become annoying. However, I stand firm that Bush won simply because Americans have become cowards towards terrorism. Or the 9/11 blast may have had an effect on their IQ. I don't know.

eh, true. you got me on that one

That's all true, Bella, but to some degree one-sided campaigning has to be effective, because pretty much all political campaigning is one-sided and some of it obviously works.

Eh, I'll have to e-mail Karl Rove and ask him to share his secrets. Not that he will.

Anything one-sided isn't affective because 1.it only shows one point of view 2. it's most likely slanted 3. it shows only the good parts, not the whole picture

obviously CNN and CBS arent effective...