Booman, my point is that the elections shouldn't even be close enough to steal--IF the Democrats were a working class party that fought against the interests of the ruling class.  The reason elections are so close is because the Democrats are only somewhat less bad than the Republicans (depends on the issue, of course--on some issues, like the environment, the Democrats are remarkably more progressive, but on economic issues the two parties are virtually indistinguishable).

I agree, framing, or arguing about high-falutin ontological theories, is a total waste of time.  No more theorising--how about organising, starting at the neighbourhoods, and working on up?  Great God of Cheese, Harry Truman would burst a blood vessel observing conversation about "metaphors of language"!

When I lived in the States, the ONLY contact I got from the Democratic Party was fundraising letters.  The message was clear:  send us money and then go away.  We don't want you involved (my wife and I are "guardians of liberty" with the ACLU, active in the Sierra Club, etc, so naturally we got on a lot of mailing lists).

It's clear that there are plenty of Americans who want to FIGHT.  For every American who has lost his love of liberty, there are two more who want to stand up and fight.  But there's nobody to organise them, mobilise them, inspire them.  That's why I think that change will either come through the Democratic Party, or else will go around it--but it WILL come.  The Democratic "leadership" can either harness the energies of the people or watch themselves be shoved aside.

Maybe the problem isn't that the Democrats aren't communicating their message to the American people--maybe the problem is that the message is coming through loud and clear (i.e., "We don't care about you, we won't fight for you, we're more interested in protecting our privileges and power than in taking a risk to fight for the people") and the people don't like what they hear.

There are three types of people: those who see, those who see when shown, those who do not see.

Framing is a pinhead elitist distraction.

Because you persist in ignoring everything involved in framing that isn't a pinhead elitist distraction.

But, as for me, I am just plum tired of tortured intellectual debates about why the party sucks when Gore got more votes and Kerry may have won the electoral college.

This sort of overlooks the chronic failure of the Dems that preceeded the 2000 election. The American people have grown mildly more progressive over the past 30 years, while the political spectrum has moved sharply to the right.  This is a problem that goes far beyond the results of the past two presidential elections.

We are fighting crooks and liars.  We are not fighting a popular ideology.

Actually, we are fighting both.  And this is what you just can't see and accept.  Conservatism is popular with people whose attitudes are much more similar to liberals than they are to the people leading the conservative movement.  This is a real problem that requires serious study and understanding.  Lakoff's work is one approach to that.  But you not only diss Lakoff.  You refuse to look at the larger problem.  You just get mad at the Dems.  You aren't looking at the root reasons why they have been acting in such a self-defeating manner.

No one likes a crook, no one likes a liar, no one is fond of a warmonger, or a war profiteer.  So, let's fucking call it like it is.

I'm all in favor of this frame.  It's quite compatible with the Right Wing Power Grab frame that I've discussed previously.

But this has always been my style, ever since impeachment.  Fight, don't talk.  Speak plainly, the facts are on your side.  Win.

But you haven't won, now have you?  

I'm all in favor of fighting fire with fire.  Plain speaking, too. And I'm a card-carrying member of the reality-based community. Facts are my friends.  None of this is the least bit in conflict with being smart about framing.