Note how that when aps disagrees with you, she immediately assumes its because -you- don't understand something or that -you- have some sort of flaw.
That's how liberals and Democrats think, though. There are no legit disagreements with them. Instead, disagreement is a reflection of misunderstanding generally caused by a mental defect.
Look at the post-election cycle after 2000. The Democrats went and got themselves a noted linguist from Cali, George Lakoff, to better craft their messages so we, the defective voter, could better understand them. His central intellectual schtick was to argue, over and over again, that liberals are right about everything but Democrats are saddled with the wrong labels and terms to describe their views. So, Democrats must come up with new labels to describe the same old agenda.
For them, it's never an issue of disagreement with the ideas and proposals, but a misunderstanding. They're just not communicating in a way that would compel the rest of us to understand them.
Lakoff's book,
Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate pointed the way. Framing is PhD-speak for making bad things sound good.
Examples:
Don't call them "trial lawyers," talk about "public protection attorneys."
Instead of the downbeat, eat-your-spinach phrase "environmental protection," Democrats should say something spicier like "poison-free communities."
Don't call it "socialism" call it "sharing."
Howie Dean called him "one of the most influential political thinkers of the progressive movement."