About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Fox News' Kelly on Ricci criticism: "Does this remind you at all of what happened to Joe the Plumber?" 

July 13, 2009 2:32 pm ET

From the July 13 edition of Fox News' Happening Now:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 13, 2009 2:35 pm ET)
      10  
      What happened to Joe the Plumber, other than the fact that it was released that his name wasn't Joe and that he wasn't a plumber?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (July 13, 2009 2:42 pm ET)
        8  
        Well, he bacame a "journalist" and went to lebanon to report the conservative agenda. Then he quickly grew tired of that line of work, quit, and came back home to preach at the teabagger's convention. Then he grew tired of that, quit, and now he's doing something else. And probably thinking about quitting. Doesn't that remind you of someone else?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by craig98607271 (July 13, 2009 9:24 pm ET)
           
        he is a dufus but his name is really joe. its his middle name but he go's by it.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (July 13, 2009 2:37 pm ET)
      10 1
      It does remind me of Joe the Plumber in the sense that the right is using an unqualified layman to represent their point of view.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by pongotwistleton (July 13, 2009 2:47 pm ET)
        1 7
        "unqualified layman"?

        Unqualified for what?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by shaggles (July 13, 2009 3:39 pm ET)
          9  
          In Joe the Plumbers case unqualified for just about everything. In Ricci's case unqualified to speak to Sotomayor's qualifications as a judge or address the reasoning behind her decision.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by magnolialover (July 13, 2009 3:52 pm ET)
            10  
            Agreed. Joe was not even a plumber. Didn't have his license, and wasn't planning on getting his plumber's license.

            Joe wasn't a journalist, but pretended to be.

            Joe thought he knew about economics, but didn't.

            Joe thought he knew about paying his taxes, he didn't.

            I'm not even sure why they are trotting out Ricci, other than his name was on a decision that Sotomayor ruled on, and he was on the losing end, and then was on the winning end on appeal. I mean, he won, what's the big freakin' deal now?

            He is no more versed to comment on her qualifications as a judge as I am. He's just a guy that apparently likes to sue his employer.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by pete592 (July 13, 2009 4:09 pm ET)
          8  
          "Unqualified for what?"

          Author.

          Plumber.

          Prophet.

          Immigration Policy Expert.

          Middle East Policy Expert.

          Civil Rights Leader.

          Conscientious Taxpayer.

          Historian.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by shaggles (July 14, 2009 12:31 am ET)
            1


          This is a legitimate question. I don't think it deserves 6 thumbs down.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by marco21 (July 13, 2009 2:49 pm ET)
        4 5
        If Ricci becomes a "reporter" for Pajamas Media, am I not allowed to criticize him? How about if he takes the stage at GOP political events?

        Joe "the Plumber" was wronged by the Ohio Sec. of State office. No one else. But, he may just be the reason Ricci is getting some attention now. I hope Ricci doesn't become a show pony like Joe has, but his attorney seems to be making a argument for GOP sainthood because those darn libs dare question his motives and record.

        PS. Does Michelle Malkin still stalk kids? Just curious.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by raine315 (July 13, 2009 2:46 pm ET)
      8 1
      Joe The Plumber???
      Where do these people get their logic?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wookie (July 13, 2009 2:54 pm ET)
      7  
      What, you mean Ricci will become progressively dumber and more bigoted?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (July 13, 2009 3:01 pm ET)
      9  
      The point that is lost here is the the REPUBLICANS are calling Frank Ricci as a witness. Why is his testimony of any importance...except to sensationalize the proceedings and/or to create another Joe the Plumber/common man to act in the Republican play. And now they're goiong to complain because the media are exposing Ricci as a litigous character. I'm sure Ricci was asked to testify voluntarily. The rule is if you place yourself in the public spotlight don't complain when the spotlight reveals you to be something other than what your handlers are trying to sell.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (July 13, 2009 3:19 pm ET)
        7  
        See, that's what I was wondering. Are they going to call ALL of the plaintiff's in cases that Sotomayor ruled against?

        This doesn't make sense. Ricci can't comment on the job that Sotomayor has done. Sure, he can say he didn't agree with her decision, but wasn't he vindicated at the SCOTUS? Isn't that how the system is supposed to work?

        Anyway, sounds like Ricci is a guy who likes to sue his employer.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Leftym0m79 (July 13, 2009 3:24 pm ET)
          6  
          That's exactly what I was thinking. Sotomayor and the other 2(?) judges on the appeal panel didn't hear the case. So how can Ricci attest to her job performance?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by smarshall1432997 (July 13, 2009 6:32 pm ET)
            4  
            Excuse me, the Republicans say that Judge Sotomayor was the "ONLY" Appeals Panel to hear Ricci's lawsuit, remember? According to Republicans, and Rush, and Sean, and FoxNews Channel, and etc. etc. Judge Sotomayor was the "ONLY" judge on the Appellate Court where "THREE" judges heard Ricci's lawsuit. LOL
            Report Abuse
    • Author by blueline99 (July 13, 2009 3:09 pm ET)
      8  
      Fair and Balanced... it was nice to hear the debate between Ricci's Lawyer and the the Slate writer, Dahlia Lithwick.... oh wait, no... we only got to hear Karen Torre slam Dahlia Lithwick.


      Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (July 13, 2009 3:15 pm ET)
        10  
        What cracks me up is how Ricci's lawyer accuses the left of being "vicious". What exactly is the right doing to Sonya Sotomayor by calling her a racist and such? Is Frank Ricci going to say nice things about Sotomayor...or is he joining the Republican gang in attacking her? And...is anyone saying anything untrue about Frank Ricci?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (July 13, 2009 3:32 pm ET)
          10  
          This does remind me of Joe the Pretend Plumber. Another case of the Wingnut Machine misinterpreting free speech as uncontested free speech.

          The GOP likes to find these average Joes and put them in the spotlight to promote their agenda, then pour on the phony indignation when their mascot faces a little scrutiny.

          I don't know much about Ricci, haven't been very interested in him aside from the basics of the case, a case used by the right to manufacture a smear against Sotomayor.

          I know more about Joe the Pretend Plumber, through the many interviews and Fox guest appearances he made, and what I know is that he's mostly made out of a sloppy combination of confusion and dishonesty. But that was impolite to notice as he floundered around the right wing media as the hero of the below-average American.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by robyn20094113 (July 14, 2009 2:40 am ET)
        1  
        does this remind you at all of Joe The Plumber
        Where the hell is the correlation?

        Megyn, it does remind me, of you, screaming at Bill Burton and other guests on your show of how Fair and Balanced Fox News is, you hypocrite.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 13, 2009 3:19 pm ET)
      4  
      Yep. Absolutely. Just like in THAT case, it's up the the "liberal" MSN to expose the truth about him.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by smarshall1432997 (July 13, 2009 3:21 pm ET)
      4  
      FoxNews Channel "LOVES" to throw out Joe the Plumber to keep those Working Class Viewers entertained that's all. So what if Joe is "NOT" his real name? So what if Joe was "NOT" a licensed plumbler? So what if Joe did "NOT" pay his taxes? So what if Joe do "NOT" want his kids around homosexuals? And the answer to these questions from FoxNews Channel - so what? LOL.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by princeofwheels (July 13, 2009 3:34 pm ET)
        6  
        Wasn't there also a Hispanic fireman involved? The Dems should call him as a witness.
        A shout out to the Senator that said the concerns of the Republicans can be discuss but they should not become SLOGANS.

        All the Repubs have left is to speak in HEADLINES filled with YEAST.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (July 13, 2009 3:54 pm ET)
          5  
          There was. The hispanic fireman was in on the suit with Ricci and the others, which means, Sotomayor ruled against one of her own race, which totally destroys the whole right wing meme about ruling according to race, since she ruled against the guy who was her own race.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (July 13, 2009 5:05 pm ET)
            3  
            "Hispanic" is a race? You sure it isn't a species?

            </Brian Kilmeade mode>
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Conchobhar (July 13, 2009 5:42 pm ET)
              2  
              A species that's been the target of a lot of specious arguments, lately.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by loonz (July 13, 2009 6:57 pm ET)
      3  
      These people are putting themselves out there to be attacked. If "Joe the Plumber" had simply remained a private citizen instead of doing a media blitz attacking Obama, there wouldn't have been any attacks against him. It's the same thing with this Ricci guy. He thinks he can go out there and attack Sotomayor while escaping criticism. It doesn't happen that way.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (July 13, 2009 7:21 pm ET)
      3  
      Let's not forget how Joe the F***ing Plumber became famous. In essence, he pretended to be an entrepreneur who was expecting his income to rise from $40,000 to $280,000, but wondered if it was worth the effort because Obama was going to raise his taxes by about $900.

      Okay, let's do the logic. I stand to make an extra 240,000, but Obama's going to raise my taxes by $900. F*** it. I'll just keep making 40,000. I'll give up the extra $240,000 just to keep the gummint from getting the extra $900... yeah, that's the ticket!

      Such mental midgetry certainly put him on a par with Sarah Palin. I hope this Ricci fellow is a little smarter than that.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by craig98607271 (July 13, 2009 9:33 pm ET)
           
        o agree with you on the logic of 'i will get taxed more so i won't even try" whine, but you are way off on the math. if you go from 40K to 240K you pay a lot more than 900$ more in taxes. i know you were trying to use the old tax off of $240K to the new obama tax of $240K. its still more than $900. gotta be careful on the mental midget jab.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by LynnTTT (July 16, 2009 11:10 am ET)
      1  
      The fact is that Ricci's legal history is interesting. He filed suit at age 20, stating he was not given a job as firefighter because he had disclosed in the interview that he had dyslexia. He was one of 794 people applying for 20 positions. He was hired. Doesn't that mean someone without dyslexia didn't get the job? Reverse discrimination. Then, he was fired after 8 months. He said it was for investigating a controversial fire. The Dept of Labor investigated and found the fire chief (who Ricci was accusing) innocent of all charges. Then he ends up at New Haven. And Sotomayor and 2 others on the Appeals Court found that the 3 previous jusdgements were correct. The SCOTUS voted 5-4 against. Not exactly overwheming. And the case was not about discrimination; it was about precendent.
      Report Abuse