In which he explains, among other things, why the current GOP campaign of obstructionism on legislative ideas from the Obama administration is perfectly sensible from their perspective, even though logically it is a hypocritical pile of cack...
As Lakoff explains, discussing GOP hypocrisy over Medicare program spending:

The highest conservative value is preserving and empowering their moral system itself. Medicare is anathema to their moral system — a fundamental insult. It violates free market principles and gives people things they haven’t all earned. It is a system where some people are paying —God forbid! — for the medical care of others. For them, Medicare itself is immoral on a grand scale, a fundamental moral issue far more important than any minor proposal for “modest cost savings.” I’m sorry to report it, but that is how conservatives are making use of real reason, and exploiting the fact that so many liberals think it’s contradictory.

I disagree with Lakoff on his point somewhat. I know the GOP position is hypocritical and totally contradictory. Ditto the stunning GOP hypocrisy over stimulus funds, where politicians who voted against the whole stimulus package are now falling over themselves to obtain (and claim the credit for) stimulus funds directed to their districts or states. Anybody with more than half a functioning brain can deduce this. However, as has been pointed out by many other folks, politicians almost never score highly on their ability to be shamed when inconsistencies between their words and deeds are pointed out. Their normal response is to act like they never heard anybody pointing this out.
However, Lakoff once again returns to one of his favorite themes about framing:

Every time a liberal goes over a conservative proposal giving evidence negating conservative ideas one by one, he or she is activating the conservative ideas in the brains of his audience. The proper response is to start with your own ideas, framed to fit what you really believe.

I always remember Frank Zappa's testimony in 1986 before the PMRC, where he essentially ignored all of the "protect the children" framing of the (incredibly stupid and dangerous) PMRC proposals to label music with what was considered "explicit content", and also added in his own significant dash of ridicule. He also debated proponents of PMRC on "Crossfire" and once again ignored their framing, instead substituting his own derived from the First Amendment. More recently Jesse Ventura destroyed proponents of torture by blowing past their "ticking bomb" scenarios and other frames and focussing on the blunt realities that (a) torture is illegal under US and international law, and (b) torture is useless for obtaining useful information. Once again, he simply steamrollered the frames of the questioners and substituted his own. This is the approach that progressives and libertarians need to be taking when facing the sort of pernicious framing that regressives and authoritarians engage in - a mixture of different framing and ridicule where the ideas and philosophies being expounded deserve it.