« PREVIEW OF NARN “THE FINAL WORD” TOMORROW: PRISCILLA LORD FARIS | Home | NRSC RELEASES NEW WEB VIDEO: “THE MORE YOU KNOW ABOUT AL FRANKEN” »
NARN “THE FINAL WORD†TODAY: DFL SENATE CANDIDATE PRISCILLA LORD FARIS
By Michael Brodkorb | July 26, 2008
I’ll be on the radio today for a two-hour program from 3-5 p.m. with King Banaian of SCSU Scholars on AM 1280 The Patriot. DFL senate candidate Priscilla Lord Faris will be a guest of the program from 3:30 – 4:30 p.m.
UPDATE: Former Minnesota Twin Al Newman was a guest of the program from 4:30 – 5:00 p.m. Newman will have a new radio show on AM 1280 The Patriot on Sunday evenings from 6:00 – 7:00 p.m.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 29 Comments »
29 Responses to “NARN “THE FINAL WORD†TODAY: DFL SENATE CANDIDATE PRISCILLA LORD FARIS”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 26th, 2008 at 2:48 PM
If Prissy wanted to run as a republican, why didn’t she file to run as a republican?
So far, every move she has made has been republican. She is not informed on the issues, wants to skip a substantive debate, choosing rather to assail the character of Al Franken, is demanding special treatment from the party and now is appearing on Michael’s show for a full hour. I half expect her to leave the studio today wearing a McCain/Pawlenty campaign shirt.
July 26th, 2008 at 4:29 PM
I’ve listened to the whole show so far, and wow, she is nutty. Glad she has such quality values to team up with MDE and SCSU Scholars to promote her “viral” non-campaign.
She is so incredibly weak on every issue, let alone public speaking skills and is especially naïve on foreign policy. Wow. No wonder the Republicans are far more eager for her to run than the Democrats are.
Can’t wait to hear Republican Candidate Jack Shepard on next week.
Also Michael, that was pretty classy twisting the death in her family into an attack on Franken. Classy.
July 26th, 2008 at 4:52 PM
Aaron: I think it was a great interview. It’s rather silly of you to get upset at me for discussing a joke of Al Franken’s and not at Al Franken for telling the joke. Lord Faris’ family has been touched by the tragedy of drunk driving. Franken has a long record of mocking MADD and drunk driving.
It was a fair question and Lord Faris wasn’t offended. She was offended by Franken’s humor. Maybe that is why you are so concerned.
Thanks for listening to the show!
July 26th, 2008 at 4:54 PM
The only redeeming quality of the interview is I am sure Michael has a bloody tongue from biting it so many times during the hour. If that had been Al Franken, he would have savaged him, but he threw softballs, and avoided any confrontation that would have shown how weak she is as a candidate. After listening, my two overwhelming thoughts were, first, I am sad to see this woman destroy a family’s good reputation in DFL circles, and second that I almost wish democrats listened to the show, so they would see how terribly weak this woman truly is as a candidate.
July 26th, 2008 at 5:55 PM
I have to agree with the Democrats here, on the issues she’s clueless as she is basically for the DFL party line even if she says shes not partisan.
Franken can’t win, this lady can’t win, whats the DFL to do?
July 26th, 2008 at 7:03 PM
LET’S BE HONEST:
Aaron,
You are new and have clearly shown everyone that you are just as partisan as Leroy and that you support Franken over the DFL party. (and Minnesota)
“she is nutty”
“so incredibly weak on every issue”
She is still a Dem, and a little respect would be nice. You are the reason why so many Dems are afraid of showing doubt about Franken– they think they will be attacked by the DFL machine. Try to be more objective in your Senate race analysis.
Michael,
It was a great interview. It’s nice to see Dems and Republicans talking to each other.
But let’s be honest, you only had Faris on so that you could all criticize Franken. You don’t actually care what she has to say so long as you can keep redirecting the discussion to attacking Franken.
I must be honest also: Faris is naïve because she seemed to believe that the boys on 1280 actually cared what she had to say. Clearly, they just used her to further undermine the Franken campaign.
July 26th, 2008 at 7:19 PM
Poor Angry Al, nobody loves him. He is so unpopular, he may give McCain Minnesota electoral votes!
God bless you Michael! As always, you are a truth teller.
July 26th, 2008 at 9:19 PM
I thought she was very weak-minded. She gave in very easily to Republican talking points. Not something you want in a candidate.
Based on her time on NARN, there isn’t anything serious about Priscilla’s candidacy.
July 26th, 2008 at 10:40 PM
Pat-
If we can’t discuss the overwhelming inadequacies of any candidate you get guys like, well, Norm Coleman in the Senate.
You can call me part of the evil DFL machine (I am not) or a sexist pig (again, not) or even a Kool Aid drinking Frankenite (not guilty). The bottom line is, I want someone battle tested who has fresh ideas and energy to remove George Bush’s lap dog from Minnesota’s Senate delegation.
Lord Farris is not that person. The fact that she would do this interview was a sure sign. Her positions (or lack thereof) drove it home.
July 26th, 2008 at 10:59 PM
What’s the big fuss about??? I thought Lord-Faris sounded confident & poised. It’s obvious why Franken won’t debate her: She’d clean his clock. Her policies are clearly liberal but she sounded like she could defend those positions far better than AF can.
Michael, I suspect that the negative comments about Lord-Faris are mostly because she isn’t an Angry Al-styled liberal.
July 27th, 2008 at 12:56 AM
Leroy:
You’re not an expert here. You don’t understand what is going on with the union vote issue on how the union is trying to steal the secret ballot from the people.
So the fact that you don’t think Norm Coleman is qualfied the opposite is true he is very well qualfied. And if you think that Lord-Faris is a poor candidate what does that make Franken since she sounded five times as smart as Franken and doesn’t carry any of his baggage.
Hiram when she was discussing oil drilling she sounded more like a hard core liberal democrat and not spewing the Republican party line.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
July 27th, 2008 at 5:55 AM
Gary- Since she is such a great candidate, I assume you will be voting for her?
Walter- Since I apparenly don’t get the union issue, could you please tell me where in the proposed legislation the secret ballot is modified, eliminated or changed in any way. And remember, Norm’s dishonest ads are not a source. Please refer to the law itself when proving my ignorance. Or, you can feel free to ignore this challange which will only serve to highlight just how blatantly stupid your last post truly was.
July 27th, 2008 at 6:42 AM
It wasn’t so much here political views that were the problem, it was her seeming unfamiliarity with political language and code words. Somebody asked her about Franken’s “anger”. Now that’s a code word Republicans have been using for years, and in the broader discourse has gone out fashion, but is still used against Franken. Priscilla accepted the loaded word immediately, and no good politician ever does that. She talked about a senator’s main job is to write laws. Well, it isn’t, something she would have known and understood if her knowledge of public affairs extended beyond civics textbooks she might have read in junior high. And in this political environment, a legal background isn’t what you want to emphasize, particularly because it doesn’t distinguish her from the guy she wants to run against, Norm Coleman.
Al is not invulnerable, but it would take a very talented and probably very well-financed challenger to beat him. Priscilla is not it.
July 27th, 2008 at 9:11 AM
Gary- Since she is such a great candidate, I assume you will be voting for her?
Why should I??? I’m a Republican. I said she’s a better candidate than Franken. I didn’t say that she was as good as a Republican. There’s a big difference.
July 27th, 2008 at 9:55 AM
When are you having fellow Republican operative Peter Hong come on the show and talk about his taste in prostitutes?
July 27th, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Gary-
So I assume you would be equally swayed if I were to tell you that Jack Shepard sounds like he is really a major improvement over Norm?
July 27th, 2008 at 4:29 PM
George, is Peter running for the Senate as a DFL’er too? I can only assume he is as he certainly does seem to fit in well with Angry Al’s campaign against women.
July 27th, 2008 at 4:33 PM
So I assume you would be equally swayed if I were to tell you that Jack Shepard sounds like he is really a major improvement over Norm?
Leroy, why would I trust anything you said without hearing why you think that? See, Leroy, Republicans demand to know the why, not just the what. That’s because the what can sometimes be fudged, especially if it’s coming from a fringe hardliner.
BTW, feel free to disagree with me. Just cite specific examples of where I mischaracterized anything.
July 27th, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Gary-
I guess I am just growing tired with Republicans who pretend to like Prissy because you know she is the democrat least likely to unseat Norm this fall. Al Franken scares the crap out of y’all because he can raise the money, and as Norm and Mark Dayton have each proven, a lot of money can propel even a weak candidate into office. And Al is no weak candidate.
So, given the choice between a guy who has weathered the storm an is still within striking distance, or a woman who has been in politics for 11 minutes, has no options to raise money, and little name recognition with anyone under the age of 90, I guess I can see why Prissy is the favorite candidate of Republicans everywhere.
July 27th, 2008 at 7:09 PM
Leroy, Al Franken truly doesn’t frighten me. I’m thanking my lucky stars they picked him.
That’s the God’s honest truth.
Franken, like Tim Walz & El Tinklenberg, is on the 27% side of the drilling question. I won’t be surprised if Brian Davis defeats Rep. Walz on that issue alone.
From what I heard of Michael’s & King’s interview, I’m simply of the opinion that Lord-Faris sounded alot more competent in defending liberal positions than Franken.
I didn’t agree with her on any of her positions but I thought she did the best in making her points.
Is that so difficult to understand?
July 27th, 2008 at 8:04 PM
Leroy:
Here is current law. The union gets 50% + 1 to sign a card that gets a secret ballot election to determine if there is an union. If the union wins the secret ballot election there is an union.
What has historically happened unions have been having a problem winning the secret ballot election because the businesses get more involved once there is a serious threat to the union. They win sometimes by addressing issues which are causing the desire for the union. The threat of getting the union drives change for the better. So the unions are trying to get rid of the secret ballot part of the current rules because it will be easier for them to form an union.
Under the system you support because the union knows who signed and who didn’t sign a card the election isn’t a secret election!
Furthermore lets say we both work for nonunion company. The union shows up trying to get us to sign cards. How do we have a guarantee that my card was actually signed by me (somebody can easily sign my name)? Furthermore, people lean on put pressure on somebody to sign a card (there’s that issue of knowing who signed and who didn’t sign plays). Pressure which if you have a secret ballot election you don’t have.
Yet you keep saying that Republicans are against the people because they are trying to stop unions being formed.
Keep in mind Norm Coleman supports the current law which you claim is anti union. Coleman isn’t lying. The union has been lying to you. And keep in mind I’m an officer for a local union!
I listened to the interview. She sounded like a better candidate than Al Franken! She doesn’t have the negatives that Al Franken has. She will be the tougher candidate for Coleman to beat.
So go out on primary day and help us have the easier candidate to beat.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
July 27th, 2008 at 8:26 PM
Walter, You need your own blog.
July 27th, 2008 at 8:57 PM
thanks for the compliment Gary, but between you Mike you kind of cover the news good enough. I’ll just keep commenting and try to give you guys ideas for what blog on.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
July 27th, 2008 at 11:39 PM
Walter-
As a unionized worker, I am amazed that you have such a poor understanding. Under current law, 30 percent of the workers can assemble and request the secret ballot. There is no card check option currently.
The card check (50% +1) is CREATED by this legislation.
Someone is being lied to, and brother, it ain’t me.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:37 AM
Leroy the point though is that you admit that there is a secret ballot. The card check isn’t a secret (the people organizing will know if I signed or not while I won’t have a guarentee that I didn’t sign) Furthermore you can’t guarantee that somebody will try to imititate me into signing (something that people have said they have done).
So Leroy I’m sorry to say you’re trying to sell the false goods. And keep in mind in post #24 you said they can request the secret ballot with their card check. Norm Coleman supports the law remaining the same which means you have just admited that Norm Coleman supports the secret ballot!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
July 28th, 2008 at 8:21 AM
You are the one who admitted that I just caught you in a lie, Walter.
The secret ballot is currently part of law. If 30 percent of workers ask for it, a secret ballot is held to determine if there is support for unionization.
The new law would also allow employees to openly pass around a list and seek 50% +1 employee support. Much like in the secret ballot, if that threshold is hit, the union is recognized.
The bottom line is, employees can still unionize the way they always have, with the secret ballot, or they can now use the public method to keep employers from undermining their efforts.
Why a self-described union guy would fight against efforts to make it easier to form (OR disband) a union is puzzling to me.
August 9th, 2008 at 11:08 AM
[...] I’m on the radio today from 3-5 p.m. with King Banaian from SCSU Scholars, but the show airing today featuring DFL Senate candidate Priscilla Lord Faris was originally broadcast two weeks ago. [...]
August 18th, 2008 at 5:59 PM
There is no way this woman is a legitimate political candidate. Isn’t she the annoying woman in the Dunwoody Institute commercials,tire company commercial and a local casino commercial. As if she wasn’t annoying enough in local commercials now we have to look at her obvious deceptive masquerade as a United States Senate candidate. Who is paying Priscilla Lord Farris for this farce????I wonder who it could be! Have we lost all credibility in the country?
August 19th, 2008 at 2:42 PM
I for one am voting for Lord-Faris in the DFL primary, based partially on the fact that Al Franken has refused to debate Mrs Lord-Faris. What’s Al afraid of?