Get Ricci

(Updated)

First they came for General Petraeus (General Betray Us, "the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief").

Then they came for Joe the Plumber!? Cah ray zee!

Now they come for Ricci the Firefighter?! Un bee lievable.

Darleen Click has the details: "Get Ricci".




End Note (Updated & Edited):

Anita Hill is being trotted out to justify the attack on Frank Ricci. The argument in favor of their comparability:

• Anita Hill testified that Clarence Thomas was unfit b/c he did not respect women.
• Frank Ricci will testify that Sonia Sotomayor is unfit b/c she does not respect Italian men.
• It's the same! Anita Hill was attacked, therefore we are justified in attacking Ricci.

It's not the same. Anita Hill's testimony about wrongdoing by Clarence Thomas was attacked - was shredded, actually, by Arlen Specter. Justice Clarence Thomas recounts the Anita Hill ordeal.

Ricci's testimony will not be attacked, as everything Ricci will say is already on the public record. Ricci will not allege personal wrongdoing on the part of Sotomayor; Ricci will not allege wrongdoing which only he was witness to.

Ricci will say: Here's who I am: male, Italian; and the Supreme Court believes Sonia Sotomayor did me wrong. Ricci will offer himself as a human face representing the individual citizens whom Sonia Sotomayor believes ought sacrifice their welfare (and the welfare of their families) in the cause of rectifying racial and gender wrongs.

To agree with Sotomayor, one must first agree with the premise that affirmative action is the solution to rectifying racial and gender wrongs. I do not agree with that premise. Second, one must stand for forcibly sacrificing Frank Ricci and his family to that cause. Even if I did agree with the affirmative action premise, I do not stand for forcibly sacrificing individual U.S. citizens to that cause.

"Get Ricci" is about assaulting Ricci's character. It's a message to media allies: here is our strategy; battlestations! Dozens of print media and TV media allies - having been cued - will now publicly question Frank Ricci's character (i.e. We're just asking questions! There's nothing wrong with that!). The substance of Ricci v. New Haven will be either ignored or skewed.

Attacking Ricci's character is like releasing military flak intended to distract a missile from it's intended target. Another example would be attacking Ken Starr (flak) as a method of distracting attention from Pres. Clinton's perjury in Jones v Clinton, and from President Clinton's use of the office of POTUS to influence Monica Lewinsky's testimony.

Will James Carville take to the air to just ask questions about Frank Ricci's character? I doubt it. James Carville has too much integrity to attack Ricci. It will be the compliant media - now given their cue about the decided-upon strategy - which will rush to battlestations and attack Ricci's character.