Republican State Leadership Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie penned an op/ed in the Washington Examiner today about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It’s a terrible idea that has wide bipartisan support.

Gillespie writes:

The NPV would allow state legislatures to cast their state’s Electoral College votes for the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of how their states voted. In August, California joined the compact, giving it 49 percent of the 270 electoral votes it needs to take effect.

The compact must pass in states controlling the remaining electoral votes needed by July 2012 for the system to be in place for the November 2012 presidential election. NPV supporters incorrectly assume that such a system would lead to fairer elections and more states being represented in the process.

Rather, if the NPV compact takes hold, instead of making elections fairer, our nation will face more recounts, an explosion in voter fraud and a diminished role for nearly every state. It would create a system wherein presidential election outcomes would be decided by a few swing cities rather than swing states.

Currently, when a recount is conducted in one state, it only affects that state’s electoral votes. Under the NPV, the entire country’s results could hinge on a single vote in a single precinct in a single state.

Not only that, but National Popular Vote would consolidate political power and influence in large cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

So far, it’s only been enacted in Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, the District of Columbia, Vermont, and California — all bastions of big government liberalism.

But there’s a proposal in the Tennessee General Assembly that would change the way Tennesseans would appropriate its 11 electoral votes. (Currently, it’s a mix of popular vote statewide and popular vote by Congressional District.)

If Tennessee enacted the National Popular Vote proposal, voters in big cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago would essentially choose Tennessee’s electors.

Don’t think a measure like this could pass in Tennessee? Think again. HB1302/SB1024 are bills that would convert Tennessee to a pro-National Popular Vote state, and they’re both being sponsored be Republicans – Vince Dean in the House and Steve Southerland in the Senate.

There has been no movement on either the House or Senate version since they were assigned to the general subcommittees of State & Local Government in both Chambers last March.

Republic-loving Tennesseans should contact these legislators to make sure HB1302 and SB1024 both die in committee to ensure Tennessee voters continue to select their state’s Electoral College Electors.

Oh, the tolerance of the Left…

Late yesterday evening, a Knoxville restaurant cryptically suggested that it denied service to conservative State Senator Stacey Campfield, allegedly for remarks he’s made about the gay community and his fervent opposition to LGBT rights in the Legislature.

In a Facebook status update, the Bistro at the Bijou posted, “I hope that Stacy Campfield now knows what if feels like to be unfairly discrimanted against.” (At the time of this publication, their post had nearly 400 “likes” and more than 80 comments.)

The general consensus from the liberal commentariat in Tennessee (and now nationally) is that an establishment should be allowed to deny service to a customer based on the owner’s opinion of that customer.

Right. A business should be allowed to choose whom it serves. This is their argument. This is the very definition of discrimination, “the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership in a certain group or category.” Toss Stacey into the group of conservative legislators, or high profile individuals who oppose LGBT rights in Tennessee, or Gingers. This definition applies.

As a libertarian, I agree with their sentiment – that a private business ought to be allowed to enter into business with whomever they chose, and by extension, deny service to those individuals they do not want to serve. It doesn’t make financial sense; a restaurant ought to want to maximize its profits and serve the most number of customers it can. A dollar from a Ginger, or a black guy, or a Jewish person, or a gay person, or whomever spends the same as a dollar from anyone else. But if the issue is property rights (and whom a property owner may serve in their establishment), then people should be allowed to exercise their principles.

But as you may recall, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul got into some trouble on the campaign trail in 2010 for expressing a very similar sentiment.

Rand Paul, in typical philosophical-libertarian-unconcerned-with-electoral-politics style, expressed his dissatisfaction with the Clause in the Civil Rights Act which forced businesses to serve customers of any race or ethnicity. Now, you might imagine that passing a law simultaneously changes hearts and minds, but it doesn’t. In fact, the Civil Rights Act did little to eliminate racist sentiments toward black Americans. I digress…

The same crowd who believes a restaurant in Knoxville should be allowed to deny service to Campfield expressed collective outrage over Paul’s comments. Rachel Maddow hosted Paul and later blogged about the discussion.

In the wake of Rand Paul’s Civil Rights-gate, John Stossel came to his defense – and by extension, the defense of those who support Bistro’s decision in Knoxville.

Stossel argues in favor of “freedom of association” and asserts that we discriminate every single day; when we’re choosing our foods, or our friends, or the hundreds of other choices we make. (On a side note, I want to strangle Megyn Kelly in this Stossel interview. She’s really grasping at straws.)

The problem with the incident in Knoxville and the subsequent public response is that it’s motivated by disdain for an individual and his beliefs. The manager who tossed Campfield out and the people who have applauded her aren’t standing on some libertarian, free association principle. They’re doing so because they don’t like Stacey.

What’s the difference, then, between refusing service to a man because you don’t like his ideas and refusing service to a man because you don’t like his skin color? Both decisions are based on a disdain for an individual.

What’s to stop the owner of Bistro from posting a sign saying “We don’t serve Gingers” or “No Republicans Allowed” or whatever?

The Tennessee Left (what little that actually exists) collectively cheers every time Campfield makes headlines for something silly. Their reaction this time is no different. It’s a personal vendetta they hold against him.

What do you think? Is it inconsistent of the Left to applaud denying service to a man with whom they disagree? Is it personal or philosophical? Leave a comment below.

Joe Lance over at Tennessee Ticket opined briefly yesterday about former Democrat State Senator Rosalind Kurita’s court battle against the State Primary Board and the Tennessee Democratic Party, asking “Is a primary election an election?”

A hearing was held last Tuesday in the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on the federal lawsuit brought by former Sen. Rosalind Kurita over her 2008 removal from the ballot by the Executive Committee of the Tennessee Democratic Party.

As expected, the central issue being argued is whether a primary election is a binding artifact of public will, or is equal to conventions, caucuses, and other means by which political parties nominate candidates, and thus subject to the party’s control.

…

This is no secret, but I would have to side with Kurita’s attorney. Yes, the primary election is the chosen vehicle by which two parties in this state nominate their candidates; but since doing it that way means being governed by state election law; and since the elections are funded by public means; and since they are attended by the general public, and not exclusive to party members, then I argue that a winner of such an election must be recognized. The parties can’t have it both ways.

Full Disclosure: I worked (read: volunteered; there was only one paid staffer, as I recall) for Senator Kurita during her write-in campaign.

The two sides are arguing over whether or not a primary election is, in fact, an election. Kurita’s attorney argues that a primary is an opportunity for voters to select a particular Party’s nominee, while the State and the TNDP argue that a primary is merely a selection process orchestrated by the various Parties and that voting just seems to be a (sometimes inconvenient) consequence of that process.

What if the Court rules in Kurita’s favor? What happens then?

Kurita’s attorney asked the panel to order a special election; however, Senator Barnes is up for re-election this year, several months outside the time frame to call for a special election.

Lance concluded, “However, I would not go so far as to demand that Kurita be seated in the Senate,” but that opinion was based on an incorrect recollection that Kurita did not run in the general. (She did, as a write-in.)

The only course of action that I can see if the court rules in Kurita’s favor is to remove Barnes from office immediately and allow Kurita to serve out the remainder of the term that would have been hers. No Republican filed to run in the 2008 election.

Both parties could then run again in the August primary without TNDP meddling.

It has always seemed to me that once a primary election is held and paid for by the taxpayers, then the results should stand. Sure, a political party should reserve the right to select a nominee, but they should be required to announce a selection process and cancel the primary.

I will, as I have since 2008, continue to follow this story as it progresses.

The Washington Examiner has a pretty good write-up here. The Tennessean, too. Ballot Access News both here and here.

Brief Note: Yes, it’s been a while since I’ve blogged here. I hope to pick up covering state issues in my spare time. I hope you’ll join me in the comments.

But last week, MTSU Sidelines Opinions Editor Brandon “Occupy Wall Street” Thomas ran an editorial seeking the “perfect Republican” Presidential candidate in the style of a Craig’s List post. Basically, he took the more extreme elements of the Right and rolled them into a mythical candidate.

Cute. I was inspired to write a Craig’s List-style response from the perspective of the liberal Democrat base… seeking 2008 candidate Obama. I hear it’s in today’s edition, but here is the original, unedited version.

Enjoy.

We were so in love, you and me.

You promised “hope” and “change” – a rejection of “politics as usual” in Washington. You promised a post-racial Presidency. You promised the economy would turn around and that unemployment would never go above eight percent. You vowed to end the Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich. You even promised an end to foreign wars. (David Brooks feels cheated, too.)

And we believed you. We believed you were the candidate who could save us from him… from the legacy of Dubya. I shudder even to write his name.

Now, three years later, we’re wondering where you went. Where did 2008 Candidate Obama go?

Instead of rejecting the old ways of Washington, you wholeheartedly embraced them. You hosted lobbyists and special interests at the White House. And when you didn’t want us to know you were seeing them, you met them only blocks away.

Your promise of a post-racial Presidency has been anything but. The Congressional Black Caucus is consistently at odds with your out-of-touch message as minority unemployment hovers in the mid-teens.

We supported your bailout of Big Business just like you asked, and unemployment shot above eight percent. It’s been above nine percent for 26 months of your so-far 32-month Presidency. And now your plan to create jobs asks for even more money to bail out business.

You couldn’t even manage to end the Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich! For Pete’s sake, Barack, the Top 1% only pay 40% of the taxes in this country! Can’t it be more? Why haven’t you pushed them to pay their fair share?

And instead of ending foreign wars, you doubled them. You committed troops in Libya, sent military “advisers” to central Africa, and ramped up a covert war in Yemen.

You are pulling troops out of Iraq, though. But it’s on a timetable set by your predecessor – Dubya. *shudder*

You were so dreamy, Barack. Your kind eyes. Your winning smile. Your promises of “hope” and “change.” The way you drew thousands of naïve college students to your events with the promise of helping cope with our student loans.

And now I learn your college loan plan will only save me $5 a month?

We miss you, 2008 Candidate Obama. We miss what you stood for, and we don’t particularly care for the shell of a man you’ve left in the White House.

So, if you see this before November 2012, give us something to believe in again.