As he says: Framing is about moral values and systems of ideas primarily, and secondarily about the language used to express those values and ideas. . . .

Being a linguist, he has interesting thoughts about how to say it - i.e. don't just go around repeating "I am not a wimp."

But I haven't seen you discuss his primary focus. I just hear you saying "I hate framing, absolutely can't stand it." Since Lakoff is identified with the concept of framing - I get the idea that you reject what he is trying to do, even though he himself sees language use as secondary.

I hate it that many people seem to have missed his point and seem intent on using what he says about language to, as you say, "package failed or unpopular policies." He does too: "But Pollitt asserts incorrectly that reframing is nothing but "repositioning their policies linguistically to give them mass moral appeal."

[Emphases mine]

Many on the Le Roi est Mort thread were worried that we may take the House in 06 just to see another version of here comes the new (and probably even worse) Reagan and Gingrich years not too far down the road. I'm really worried about that too.

Lakoff is saying - I think - Job #1 is to make damn sure that we know what we stand for, and it's got to be more than "We're not as corrupt as they are." Job #2 is to figure out how to communicate to the American people what we stand for.

Job 2 is how to win, but if we don't do job one, winning is not going to get us very far in terms of making the world a better place. I argue with you because I hear nothing from you about Lakoff's trying to get us to focus on Job 1. (Wish I could explain this better, but I have to run and give an exam - students don't take kindly to the prof wandering in late on exam day.)

We are all different, but all in the same boat. --Alice

This is deeply disingenuous and not at all like you.