[tarheelswamprat]

“Framing” is the process of choosing the best words to describe individual issues and characterize a debate. Bai hails Lakoff as the father of the concept.

Oh, really? I thought the ancient Greeks and Romans covered this in their teaching of "rhetoric" and "oratory" thousands of years ago.

[Reactionary]

Liberals have been "framing issues" for decades. That's why we have "a woman's right to choose" instead of abortion; that's why we have "racism" instead of equality before the law; that's why we have "sexism" instead of an understanding of natural differences between men and women.

A little more Orwellian Doublespeak isn't going to help them. Everyone knows the game they're playing.

[Chode]

almost as funnny as the RATs trying to decide what their "Core Values" are... (hint to you RAT's, if you have to decide what they are... you don't have any!!!)

[Liberty Wins]

The Democrats are modern-day Sophists. The Sophists of ancient Greece were a class of teachers who, for a fee, would teach you how to achieve political success by using fallacious arguments in order to appear clever. The search for truth was not top priority. Consequently the sophists undertook to provide a stock of arguments on any subject, or to prove any position. They boasted of their ability to make the worse appear the better reason, to prove that black is white. Some asserted that it was not necessary to have any knowledge of a subject to give satisfactory replies.

[evolved_rage]

I remember the "gravitas" weekend well. Hey Lakoff, STFU. How do you like my lexicon, you Noam Chomsky wannabe.

[Cicero]

I doubt that there's anything new here. It's the same basic idea the New Leftist Dems have been working with for the past twelve years or more. Not, "how can we change to appeal better to the voters," but "how can we repackage ourselves to look better to the voters."

Repackage, reframe; same old, same old.

[longtermmemmory]

I saw his INFOmercial.

He is a skilled weasel with words but his tecnique is dependent on the ignorance of the desire to be gulable fo the listener.

There is no substance to his argument.

ie he says Republicans are strong father model, democrats are loving parent model. note no mother, the a-sexual "parent".

ie homosexual marriage is not about marriage it is about looooooove. TOTAL LEGAL BS, the law has NEVER considered love in marriage.

ie Tax relief is not right, tax FAIRNESS.

He also works on using left wing talking points as a factual assumption. such as, the USA is less secure, the USA squandered international credibility. IOW the USA should bow to the alter of UN (and france).

Word play with no substance.

He is a modern Goebles.

[the invisib1e hand]

this guy again?

[A. Pole]

Marc Cooper wrote that Lakoff sees the American people as, “Red-neck, chain-smoking, baby-slapping Christers desperately in need of some gender-free nurturing and political counseling by organic-gardening enthusiasts from Berkeley.”

See my tagline.