George Lakoff of the University of California at Berkeley offers "Why Conservative Lies Spread and What Progressives Can Do to Fight Them/When Democrats use conservative language to promote their agenda, it ultimately creates more support for Republicans" at Alternet [1]. Leaving aside all the other aspects of the article, let's look at an example of what he wants progressives to do instead of framing issues in a conservative fashion.

As an example, he offers a "possible op-ed" called "End A Bad Law: 287 g". I'm also going to also leave aside his unfair complaints about 287g and instead just show how reframing bad public policy doesn't work: it's still bad public policy. In the sample op-ed he says:

Almost all immigrants who entered the US without papers are honest, hard-working, decent people, who have often risked their lives to come the America. They do essential work, mostly for low wages, work that makes the lifestyles of most Americans possible: cleaning homes, caring for children and the elderly, gardening, cooking in restaurants, working on farms, doing odd jobs, working on construction. They deserve our gratitude. They are America's mainstays, good guys. There are twelve million of them in America, helping us all live better every day.

1. The first sentence supports a Darwinistic immigration policy: some of those who will have tried to enter the U.S. illegally will have ended up dying in the desert. Instead of trying to prevent people from such a fate, Lakoff is trumpeting the success of those who made it. If, for instance, someone manages to stowaway inside a jet wheelwell and make it to the U.S. alive, should they be hailed as a hero? Of course not: it would encourage more people to try to do that, and almost all wouldn't make it. Should we make that part of our immigration policy? Should we, for instance, require immigrants to cross the desert and only accept those who make it across? Lakoff is enshrining trying to cross the desert into our immigration policy instead of trying to prevent people from crossing. What he's supporting is immoral.

2. The rest of the paragraph is supporting, in effect, foreign serfs brought in to do the dirty jobs we (supposedly) won't do. Yet, Americans work in almost every job category; the standard talking point about jobs Americans wont do is false. The "us" in his last sentence doesn't refer to "us" so much as those in the "nanny-employing class" like Lakoff. If those illegal workers left over time, unemployed Americans - such as the 25.5% of teenagers who are currently unemployed - would fill their jobs over time, the lack of cheap foreign labor would lead to new machines and processes being developed, and so on. That would be proper public policy; Lakoff is supporting the opposite.

3. Lakoff is also supporting massive illegal activity, disrespect for our laws, political corruption (as politicians encourage, enable, or ignore massive law-breaking in order to gain money or power), and all the many other negative aspects of illegal immigration.

[1] alternet.org/teaparty/147473/lakoff%3A_why_conservative_lies_spread_and_what_progressives_can_do_to_fight_them/?page=entire
Note that I've been banned from Alternet, so they know at least one way that progressives can fight those spreading the truth they don't want to hear.