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.

It’s a new year, but we’re still talking about the same old subjects. Today’s topic takes us back to the Health Care Reform legislation. If you recall, I left the conversation with the Senate debating on the language of their bill a week before they were set to vote. The Senate bill has passed, and it is now time for the two houses of Congress to come together and merge their bills.

If we continue to look back, during the presidential campaign, candidate Barack Obama repeated made the point that the Health Care Reform discussion and deliberations would be televised by C-SPAN. He made this point because he believes the general public (or at least those who have access to C-SPAN) should be able to watch the process and examine the politicians to see if they were in the pocket for the lobbyists and health care companies. Of course, as President he can not force the Congress to televise their deliberations, but an issue that significantly impact everyone and the national debt should be transparent to the public.

Going back even further, we recall the night that the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives. Nancy Pelosi stated that the Democrats “intend most … open … congress in history.” This came on the heals of a campaign where the Democrats national message hammered the Republicans over secrecy on legislation and meetings with corporate representatives and lobbyists.

So what is the discussion in the news today? Brian Lamb, the CEO of C-SPAN, wrote a letter to Congressional Democratic leaders asking them for permission to put cameras in the room where negotiations between the two Houses would be held. Unfortunately for C-SPAN, Pelosi and Harry Reid are planning to do what is being called “ping pong” – a process where the two sides will submit recommendations of revisions to each other without convening a formal session for deliberations. Noting that this lack of openness and transparency would be a hot-topic issue, Pelosi came out and cut the debate off early by stating “there has never been a more open process for any legislation.”

So what should the general public think of this process? Is this hypocrisy? Politics as usual? Whatever you might call it, I find it silly. Silly, because the only reason why Pelosi and Reid are taking this route is because their hallmark legislation has become such a thorny issue that they can’t risk additional public debate without risking further political damage. As it is, public support for the legislation continues to slip, and both moderate and far-left Democrats are complaining about the extent and scope of the proposed reform. Having this hanging around their neck leading into the election year is something the two leaders want to keep out of the news and signed quickly.

Related articles:
The Hill – “Pelosi tells C-SPAN: ‘There never been a more open process’”
The Washington Times – “EDITORIAL: Hiding health bills behind closed doors”
Real Clear Politics – “Obama’s C-Span Problem”
U.S. News & World Report – “Democratic Leaders Plan Secret Health Reform Deliberations”
FOX News – “C-SPAN Challenges Congress to Open Health Care Talks to TV Coverage”
CNN – “Boehner backs move to open health care talks to media”

I strangely recall someone telling me last year that we were going to have an end to “politics as usual” and issue in an age of transparency. Well, I think we have finally seen the transparency of politics as usual – much of it occurring over the past 24 hours. Like a poorly designed reality TV program coupled with a B-move drama, the Democrat-controlled Senate has shown us how difficult it is for 60 people living under one big tent to ever agree on one thing. By this, I am talking about their Health Care Reform proposal.

President Obama (an ex-Senator) called the 60 current Senators in the Democrat caucus to the White House to pressure them to come to an agreement on the Health Care Reform proposal and vote on it before Christmas. If you recall, Obama originally wanted this bill signed earlier in the Summer, and has then gradually allowed the deadline to slip from month to month until settling on the end of the year. The pressure is on, since campaigning for the 2010 Congressional elections will hit full steam in January, and the President is afraid that dragging this hot-topic issue into the campaign season will put sitting Democrats at risk of losing in the polls, compliments of an angry voting public.

It seemed to be coming together for the Democrats in November, when fence-sitter Mary Landrieu sold her vote for a $300 Million ‘bribe’ (though it is likely that the section of the bill directing this financial aid will probably be stripped from the legislation when the House and Senate combine their bills). Receiving enough votes on the procedural test to get the bill to the Senate floor, the Democrats felt that they were on track to moving the process forward to passing the bill and merging it with the House bill. And then they hit a roadblock by the name of Joe Lieberman.

Siding with the Republicans, Lieberman (former Democrat, now Independent) said he would support a filibuster against a bill that contains a public option. With estimates of the bill costing over $1 Trillion, the public option was tossed in favor of an ‘early buy-in’ for the Medicare. Lieberman, not being impressed, said he would vote against that option as well. This roadblock led to the meeting in the White House today as well as Obama making yet another public statement on how this must be passed.

A plan was formulated to drop the Medicare buy-in from the bill as well, just in order to get enough votes to pass some sort of legislation, to which Lieberman said he would support. This news was a welcomed sigh of relief in the White House, but that was short lived. A new roadblock arose by the name of Roland Burris. Burris, the Illinois Senator appointed to Obama’s vacant seat, has challenged the Senate leadership by saying he will not vote in favor of any legislation that does not contain a public option.

This rift has led to another ex-Senator Governor (close enough) to chime in on the debate. Former DNC Chairman and Presidential candidate Howard Dean came out calling for Harry Reid to “kill the Senate bill” and work using the House bill through the practice of reconciliation. This way, the Senate Democrats would only need 51 votes to pass the legislation and move the bill to Obama for passing.

Dean is probably correct, since any bill coming out of the current Senate debate will look vastly different than the bill that passed by just three votes in the House. Trying to merge the two bills together where both houses would vote in favor of it will be next to impossible. However, if the Democrat leadership go down the path of reconciliation in 2010, it will be instant fodder for the Republicans as well as Democrats against the public option to use against incumbent Democrats during the congressional campaigns.

So, the heat is on for the Democrats to pass something in the next 10 days. Failure to pass legislation in the Senate will all but mean the end of the debate on Health Care Reform until after the elections. Ironically, that might mean the Democrats would have a smaller control over the House and Senate, making it even more unlikely to have a bill with a public option reaching the President.

Aren’t you glad that there is more transparency?

Reading through the news today, I cam across the following quotes from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:

Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, “slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.” If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said “slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough.” When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn’t quite right. When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today.”

There are four points that I want to cover with this: slavery, women, civil rights, and rush to action.

Slavery:  It is interesting that Reid starts his argument by saying “there were those who dug in their heels” in regards to recognizing the wrongs of slavery. He is trying to imply that it was the Republican’s who favored slavery and attempted to bar the abolishment of the practice. However, truth be told, it was the Democratic Party that supported the practice leading up to the Civil War. Democratic President James Buchanan sided with the Supreme Court on the Dred Scott Decision and the pro-slavery Southern Democrat movement pushed to expand slavery into the Kansas Territory. The anti-slavery camp, known as the newly-formed Republican Party, was bolstered by the support of Northern Democrats who were afraid of the surge of the Southern Democratic power, resulting in the sweeping victory of Abraham Lincoln in the Northern states in 1860.

Women:  This is another interesting reference point. In 1918, President Woodrow Wilson endorsed the 19th Amendment on January 8th. On January 9th, the Republican-lead House of Representatives passed the Amendment, though the Democrat-led Senate delayed the vote until October, and then voted against it. It wasn’t until June 1919 that the Senate finally passed the Amendment, with the now Republican-led Senate passing the Amendment 56 to 25, with 75% of Republicans and 42% of Democrats voting in favor. So far, Reid is two-for-two with endorsements of the Republicans.

Civil Rights:  A century after the civil war, when the nation fought against itself over issues to include slavery, the nation found itself fighting over the equality of men, or in this case, blacks. While the North continued to be more favorable towards racial issues, the South continued the tradition of elevating one race over another. The tides were changing in the 1960s, however, and a strong movement was growing in Congress to outlaw segregation bring voting equality to all. In 1964, the Congress voted on the Civil Rights Act, passing with 70% or more in both Houses. The Southern Democrats fought against passage, but in the end 69% of Senate Democrats and 63% of House Democrats voted in favor of the Act. This was trumped by Republican support, with 82% of Senate Republicans and 80% of House Republicans voting in favor.

In the three examples cited by Reid, the Republicans are shown to be not only necessary for passing major legislation, but also led the cause. I doubt that Reid doesn’t know this history, so I can only guess that he was attempting to somehow cast their involvement in a negative light as to deflect the public attentions to this fact. But Reid makes one other error in his rant on the Senate floor. His constant repeating of “slow down, stop everything, let’s start over” mirrors the comments made by Congressional Democrats during the lead-up to the Iraq war. In fact, Senator John Kerry accused Bush of “rushing to war without a plan to win the peace.”

So, if Kerry was right that we should not rush into decisions, how can Reid be correct with his rush to a conclusion on the Health Care Reform debate? Maybe Reid is four-times wrong in one floor speech.