Sarah Palin was served a gimme on Tuesday and somehow missed the chance for a homerun. What I am talking about is her response to a question in front of a crowd of Republican and Tea Party members. This is the type of question a politician and talking head lives for but rarely see in an open forum.

She was asked what her advice would be to conservatives as they prepare for the midterm elections later this year. Her response? “Pick a Party.” Pick a party? Really? Here is her full response:

“Now the smart thing will be for independents who are such a part of this Tea Party movement to, I guess, kind of start picking a party,” Palin said. “Which party reflects how that smaller, smarter government steps to be taken? Which party will best fit you? And then because the Tea Party movement is not a party, and we have a two-party system, they’re going to have to pick a party and run one or the other: ‘R’ or ‘D’.”

Her statement is surprising for a few reasons. For starters, Palin labeled herself as a Maverick – willing to buck the system and her party. This was evident when she backed Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman over Republican Dede Scozzafava. Her endorsement catapulted Hoffman up in the polls, causing Scozzafava to eventually drop out.

One of the key complaints from the Tea Party movement and Independents around the country is that the “Parties” are dysfunctional and self-serving, leading to the problems our nation has today. The reason why Palin and the grassroots movement supported Hoffman was that they felt Scozzafava was too liberal and didn’t support a conservative position – making it difficult to define the difference between her and her Democrat challenger. This “blending” has placed the established Parties apart from the citizens who are essentially forced to choose between two parties.

That is why Palin’s comment about having “a two-party system” and that we have to choose between one of the two candidates they nominate is mind-boggling. Now I’m not saying the Tea Party movement should nominate their own candidates (a move that would probably split the Republican vote leading to more victories by the Democrats), but we do have greater flexibility who we can vote for to represent us in Washington. The correct response she should have given to the question is as follows:

My advice for Independents, Tea Party members, and Republicans alike is to examine the field of politicians running for office and asking for your votes. Not only are there Democrats and Republicans running for office, but also there are Conservative, Libertarian, Constitution, and Green Party candidates as well as qualified Independents seeking the responsibility of public office. Challenge them on their positions, look into their history, and ask if they are the best choice to make decisions that impact your life. When you identify the best candidate, support him or her and explain to others you know and meet why you feel he or she should be elected. If for some reason none of the candidates presented to you meet your expectations, approach your local Party office and tell them what you want in a candidate, and work with them to identify new candidates in future races.

Since Palin was speaking before a mixed yet friendly crowd, the above advice would have brought the groups closer together and work towards a more common goal. But by telling Independents and Tea Party supporters that they have to choose between either a Democrat or a Republican on the ballot makes Palin sound hypocritical. This is especially true when she wrote that the Tea Party movement is “a ground-up call to action that already has both political parties rethinking the way they do business” just two weeks earlier. You can’t intimidate the two dinosaur Parties if you telling people they have to choose one of their candidates.

There are a series of primaries happening tonight and it reminded me that the 2010 mid-term elections are almost here.  While the Massachusetts Senate election drew a lot of attention, it was a special election and not part of the election cycle for the rest of the nation.  With one-third of the Senate seats, all of the House seats, and 36 Governor seats up for grabs, this mid-term election cycle should be interesting and exciting.

In the Massachusetts Senate 2010 special election, the nation was surprised to see Scott Brown win to fill the vacancy left by the death of Ted Kennedy.  What other surprises are we in for this year?  Could Vice President Joe Biden’s seat go to a Republican?  How about the Pennsylvania Governorship?  Will the Democrats lose control of the Senate?  There are many scenarios waiting to unfold by November this year.

The one race I am really interested in is the Nevada Senate race where Majority Leader Harry Reid currently trails the two Republican primary candidates.  Republicans Danny Tarkanian and Sue Lowden have both been polling around 10 points higher than Reid in recent weeks, even though he has been raising and spending millions of dollars in his quest for six more years in office. 

As I did with the 2008 Presidential primaries and election, I will track these races to the best of my ability so you can stay up to speed.  Obviously I won’t be able to track all of the House races, but I will highlight some of the more interesting ones as we go along.  I will, however, create a tracking post for the Gubernatorial and Senate races so we can see who the individual candidates are and track to see how well the parties do when the election day arrives.

Speaking of parties, I will also track down as many of the third-party candidates as well.  The Libertarian, Constitution, Green, and Reform parties often attempt to create a beachhead in national politics during the Congressional races.  And while we are talking parties, I’m looking forward to see if the Tea Party movement will put up their own candidates this year, or if they will simply be placing their weight behind various Conservative or other candidates.

The Massachusetts 2010 election served as our springboard into the mid-term elections this year.  It is time to turn our attention away from a single state and start watching the races nation wide.  How will the balance of power shift in ten months?  Stay tuned to find out.

Congratulations to Senate-elect Scott Brown on an astounding victory last night.  He performed better than I though, coming in with a 5% lead over his competitor Martha Coakley.  Not only did he win the election, he won the seat held by Ted Kennedy for 46 years.  But I think some people are jumping ahead of themselves at the moment and proposing the following:

That’s right.  The dust hasn’t even settled from yesterday’s election and people are already wondering if he will run for President.  What is this rush for instant escalation in political power following an election?  The same question was brought up when Bob McDonnell won the election for Governor of Virginia last year.  Is the Republican party seriously in need of a leader?  Is the media seriously looking for the face of the Obama opposition?

Unfortunately, I do not have an answer for either of those questions.  But for the Republicans who are already clamoring over Brown hoping that he will put his hat in the right, let me remind you of something.  One of the biggest complaints Republicans had over then-Senator Obama was that he had very little national/political experience.  This was the same argument made by Democrats over Sarah Palin.

True, Brown has 18 years of political experience within the Massachusetts political environment, meaning he isn’t new to the limelight.  He has served in the Army National Guard, providing him with leadership experience and serving abroad.  But much of this is localized experience.  If we reflect back on the 2008 election, candidates had started campaigning as early as 2006.  If that climate repeats itself for the 2012 election, campaigning will begin this year (probably right after the midterm elections).  That means Brown would only have 10 months as a US Senator before seeking the nomination of the Republican party.

That is too fast, especially for a politician that we don’t fully know yet.  Give Brown time to serve in office and, if he feels the urge, then run for office in 2016.  In the mean time, let the man focus on the pending issues that are awaiting him when he is sworn in next week.