The reality is -- and this has long been clear -- that Americans have little respect for, and even less interest in, people who stand for nothing and seem afraid of their own belief system. Clarity of principle and courage of conviction are almost always more politically appealing than muddled incoherence, calibrated careerism, or muted cowardice. The GOP's recognition of this fact was the primary cause of George Bush's otherwise inexplicable political success (the key line from his 2004 RNC Convention acceptance speech: "Even when we don't agree, at least you know what I believe and where I stand"). And many of the Democrats' failures have been due not to excessively strong advocacy of liberal views, but to the opposite: confusion about what they believe, if anything.
Now, how does this apply to the Framing/Accommodation wars? Well, the Gnu Atheists insist on forcefully and clearly arguing for their position. You know what they stand for and why.
The Fraccommodationists, on the other hand, think pro-science types should keep their atheism to themselves. We shouldn't challenge other people's ideas. We should avoid doing anything that might upset them.