I’m getting confused.
When is majority rule good and mob rule bad?
And when is mob rule good and majority rule bad?
In Egypt, mob rule was good because majority rule – in the form of free and open elections – was being suppressed. Plus, Mubarek was a thug – albeit “our” thug for 30 years.
Pushing aside the fact that the protesters on the square (about 100,000) were an infinitesimal part of the county’s population (about 83 million), I get that one.
In Wisconsin, mob rule is good and majority rule is bad. Huh?
The clear majority of Wisconsin voters elected a GOP governor and GOP majorities in their state’s Senate and Assembly. They got to work and prepped legislation to make government workers pay some (versus none) of their health insurance premiums and pension benefits.
So, the Dem Senators – who knew they were going to lose the vote to the majority — left the state to preclude a quorum for the passing of any legislation.
Democracy at work ?
And, thousands of teachers were suddenly too sick to work, and sick enough to get sight-unseen notes from cause-supportive doctors, but healthy enough protest in Madison – where they were complemented by bus loads of union and and Dem operatives – some from Wisconsin, some not – all encouraged by no less than President Obama.
So, the multi-state mob is good, the majority of voters is bad.
I’m having trouble with that one.
Now the big question.
If we’re switching from majority rule to mob rule, how many folks have to march on Washington to get ObamaCare repealed?
I figure that since 100,000 out of 83 million was good enough in Egypt … and 50,000 out of 5 million is good enough in Wisconsin … it should take only about 500,000 congregated protesters in the U.S.
I think the Tea Party could muster that number.
Hmmm. Let’s be consistent, right ?
The Homa Files 