What's Really Going On At "Occupy Wall Street"

A person who follows conservative media will find "Occupy Wall Street" coverage full of mockery, disdain, or a dismissive attitude. A person who digests liberal media will be informed of a growing movement that will soon dwarf the Tea Party in influence.

So we turn to the libertarians for some balanced coverage--they don't like Republicans OR Democrats.

My own view? Well...that's influenced by my own perspective of political debate.

I never like debate in which the opponent is accused of "not caring about" or "wanting to destroy" something. You've heard it: Republicans don't care about the environment, Democrats want to destroy the free market.

Republicans and Democrats often share the same concerns but have different solutions. Improving education? I'd say charter schools. A Democrat may say pay teachers more.

In this context (common problem identification), "Occupy Wall Street" has something in common with the Tea Party. Both are aware that our economic policy is being driven to benefit big donors to politicians.

While the Democratic party may hope to ingest the "Occupy" movement into its party, I believe that the Dems will have the same challenge faced by Republicans who attempt to incorporate the Tea Party--the movements purposely exist OUTSIDE the existing political structure, because its members are motivated by a frustration over how the current system operates.

Both the "Occupy" and the "Tea Party" movements are organic and mistrust the existing establishment. I saw evidence of that on an "Occupy" website when the movement was endorsed by some union organizations. Commenters were already bemoaning that the "professionals" were trying to muscle into the movement.

A particular challenge for the left lies with its ideology; if government is identified as the problem, how do you fix that problem with MORE government?

Iowa Needs Another Education Summit

Iowa Governor Terry Branstad held an education summit this past summer and has released an education reform plan.

He needs to call another education summit.

Why?

Because President Obama has named Shakira Isabel Mebarak Ripoll to a presidential commission on education for Hispanics, and we need to know what she thinks of the Governor's plan. Of course, Wyclef Jean just refers to the new commissioner as "Shakira, Shakira."

Sarah Palin Is Not Running

Sarah Palin will not run for President in 2012. The GOP field is set.

In other news, I am thinking of changing my name to "Any Republican" and running.

Candidates Have Yet To Close The Sale

This new CBS poll confirms what we've discussed earlier: the new "go-to" candidate for the "Anybody But Romney" voters is Herman Cain, to the detriment of Rick Perry.

Also interesting: as we approach an early January caucus date in Iowa, candidates have yet to seal the deal with GOP voters.

Less than 20 percent of those polled said they had definitively decided who to support, and only eight percent said Cain was the candidate most likely to defeat the president in 2012. 32 percent of Republicans named Romney as the most electable candidate, while 21 percent tabbed Perry.

The implications: candidates such as Santorum and Bachmann step it up in Iowa, while Romney focuses on the "guy-who-can-win" theme and Perry searches for some major rhetoric to regain traction.

Christie Won't Run, And That Means...

Chris Christie won't run for President. That leaves only one possible late entrant into the GOP presidential field: Sarah Palin.

I guest-hosted on WHO Radio Monday when guest Shane Vander Hart told us why it's not too late for Palin. Here's his excellent post on the topic.

Also on WHO, you heard Iowa GOP Chair Matt Strawn tell me that the Iowa caucuses would be moved to a date within "the shadow of the New Year,"--the first week of January.

The accelerated calendar means a big boost for a candidate that finishes in the top three in Iowa--and makes it very, very hard for a low finisher to recover.