I haven't read Lakoff's book (though this may horrify Nat), so when I say framing, I'm not necessarily talking about the "strict father vs. nurturing parent" way of looking at the world. I'm talking about the more fundamental definition of using words to establish an entire debate on the right grounds.

The rant in the above link starts out and continues about Howard Dean as a potential DNC chairman, noting that he was never running as a far-out left-winger, but that's how he got portrayed. This is part of how the radical regressive element in the US has hijacked framing and vocabulary.

Several progressive blogs have noted, with dismay, that the guys currently in charge of the Republican Party do not act like "conservatives" at all. I've read some that are yelling at "real" conservatives to abandon the Republican Party because of the GOP's policies, and I've read others complaining that if these "conservative leaders" act like this, this obviously must be what "conservative" means today.

Both of these arguments are way off-base. There is no definition of "conservative" that matches the actions of the current Republican Party. They are not "moderate" or "not radical." They are not in favor of "tradition," like bipartisanship, dissent, and freedom of speech.

Most specifically, they are not trying to "conserve" anything. They are trying to roll back decades of progress in equal rights, religious tolerance, and civil rights. They want gay people in the closet or in jail (except Mary Cheney). They want to end the progressive income tax so that only people who work for a living have to support the federal government. They want to end Social Security and Medicare by privatizing them, in essence forcing you to give money to private companies in the hopes they won't go bankrupt and will provide the services you want. They want science taken out of schools if it conflicts with their religious beliefs, they want any programs they don't like removed from television, and they spew the most profane, hate-filled, obscene rants at anyone who disagress with them.

These people are not conservatives, and every battle we don't fight, they win. Therefore, people who understand what's going on must stop referring to them as "conservatives." If we do, we're lying, and we can't win by lying - the GOP does that, and they're a lot better at it than we'll ever be.

Referring to the GOP leadership and supporters as "conservative" is dishonest, and we have to stop it. I'd be much more militant about this if I had a better word than "regressive," but the people who do this for a living need to find one.

In any television or radio appearance, any interview, any media time of any kind, progressives must object any time a radical right-winger is referred to as "conservative." I imagine something like this:

Well, first, Anchortron, it's not honest to call Tom DeLay a 'conservative.' He's not conserving anything but his own power, and he's trying to roll back Social Security, Medicare, civil rights, responsibility, and the rest of the progress this country made in the past 100 years. He's a radical who wants to undo this country back to the Great Depression, and it's an insult to true conservatives everywhere to call him one of them. Now, that said...

Or perhaps:

In answer to your question, generic talking head, let's not confuse President Bush with "conservative" voters. The President is a radical right-winger who is farther to the right than Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, or just about any president since Herbert Hoover (who had about the same amount of success). Calling Howard Dean a "liberal" because he's more progressive than the President is like calling Ted Kennedy a "conservative" because he's to the right of Noam Chomsky. Howard Dean is a centrist; it's President Bush who's far out of the mainstream.

And none of this damn liberal waffling either, please. No "I don't think he's a conservative" or "In my view, he's not conservative." He's not conservative, and if you're not sure, no one else will be either. If you want to win elections, start by speaking the truth.

Every time, in every interview, from now on. Not for one news cycle to see if it "sticks," not until Tom DeLay starts being mean to you. They never let go of their lies, and we can't let go of the truth. The media is not going to report the facts for you. When you see true conservatives, feel free to note that, but do not lie to yourself and everyone else and pretend these guys are them. Speak the truth.

(Charleston, South Carolina)  A state legislator says he wants to cut South Carolina Educational Television's budget after it aired a documentary o ngays in the South.

"I thought it was just social, leftist propaganda that they had no business airing," said state Rep. John Graham Altman, R-Charleston. "They were actively promoting homosexuality as an OK thing to do."

[...]The Southern Lens series has featured documentaries on Moon Pies and Holocaust survivors in South Carolina. [...] All of the documentaries are independently financed and cost the state nothing.

Altman sees the "Neighbors" documentary as an effort to promote a "militant homosexual agenda."

Altman says if SCETV can afford to produce such programs to influence the Legislature, then it can afford to have its budget cut. The agency runs on a budget of $12.7 million, down from $20.3 million four years ago.

So, even though it costs the state nothing to produce this documentary, this gay-baiting knuckle-dragger (who also ran against his last opponent on the "he's gay, I'm not" platform) wants to cut the budget because it was a bad use of the money they didn't spend on it.

Can you even imagine the uproar if a Democratic or Green legislator contacted the media wanting to reduce public television's budget because a program talked about people who go to church? "I thought it was just right-wing, religious propaganda that they had no business airing? They were actively using state money to promote religion as an OK thing to do?"

At least not all the hate-filled idiot legislators are from Oklahoma. (Via 365 Gay.)