The Republican Noise Machine was in rare form yesterday when it came to Social Security, as Atrios and Kevin Drum both point out. Whether these networks were suckered by the right-wing noise machine or were simply engaging in crap reporting is open to debate, since both happen on a regular basis and both are often present in the same "reports." Either way, both CNN and CBS are fueling the ongoing conservative invention of social security crisis, which is being used not only as a means of increasing people's dependency on an aristocratic corporate oligarchy, but also to position Republicans as the party of reform. No wonder conservatism remains ascendant.

This post is not about Social Security, which I am just using as an example because of its prescience. The Republican Noise Machine is not about this issue or that issue, but instead is a permanent mechanism of conservative persuasion that is at the heart of the large ideological advantage conservatives enjoy over liberals. In order to close the national gap between the competing ideologies, liberals and progressives need not only to counter the Right Wing Noise Machine, but indeed to surpass it.

Fortunately, this is something people in the party are very interested in doing. Along with a few other bloggers, I just talked with former Michigan Governor James Blanchard, who is exploring a run for DNC chair. Many of us were concerned by the shocking effectiveness of the Republican message machine, and Blanchard he concurred with the basic sentiment in what I wrote above. While he "didn't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist," he vociferously complained about how the how conservatives seem capable of duping the media on every issue, such as creating a non-existent crisis in Social Security as a means of destroying the safety net. In so doing, the RNM has been able to create a national conventional wisdom on seemingly every single issue that is always favorable to conservatives. Blanchard argued that the DNC needed to begin to take an aggressive stance toward the media by telling them they "have been had," and immediately begin creating a permanent, large-scale message developing and distribution network of our own.

Other people have ideas on how to counter the Right Wing Nosie Machine. Back in July, Matt Bai wrote in the New York Times Magazine about the ongoing effort among extra-party Democratic operative such as Rob Stein and Simon Rosenberg to both reveal the operation of the Right Wing Noise Machine in all its glory to wealthy donors and to simultanesouly find entrepreneurs with new ideas about how counter the RWNM with a left wing noise machine. The entrepreneurial aspect of this plan needs to be emphasized, because it specifically involves new organizations pitching their plans to uber-wealthy liberal millionaires and billionaires who will then decide whether or not to pony up millions of dollars in what amounts to venture capital in order to allow the new organizations to flourish. While this is an encouraging development, I must admit that when I reread Bai's piece last night it also felt rather dis-empowering, largely due to its reliance on a small collection of individuals with extreme wealth.

As a true grassroots believer, I remain in the search for what groups of plebeian volunteers can do on our own to counter the Republican Noise Machine without the assistance of million dollar donations. Blogs are certainly an important element, but among other things the significant decline in post-election traffic many of us have incurred has convinced me that they are nowhere near enough. We are not growing fast enough to become a significant counter to the mainstream anytime soon. However, I do have another idea.

Last month, based on recent articles by others on the net, I wrote about a possible permanent progressive organizational plan in an article I titled Ding!.

Two weeks later, I printed out an eight-page outline of the reasoning behind this plan, brought it to the Philadelphia Democracy for America Meetup. I gave it to Anne Dicker, the Meetup host and member of the Philly for Change steering committee. Two days ago we met over tea and came up with an outline on how to use the House Party plan I proposed:

• With the election so far off, instead of being either a means of direct action toward fundraising and elections, the House Party plan should focus on being a means to distribute the progressive message.

• We can use House Parties either as a reading group that focuses on important political books, or as a means to train people to use progressive linguistic frames developed by the Rockridge Institute in their discussion of important political issues.

• Change the name "House Party" to "Talking Liberally," "Writing Liberally," "Reading liberally," or some combination of the three.

At the January DFA Meetup, we are going to give the idea a test-run by breaking people into groups and having the m discuss the Rockridge frame on taxes. Afterwards, we will have them write a letter to the editor using the frame, probably in the context of Social Security since that is the biggest issue these days.

We need to find as many ways as possible to break through the Republican Noise Machine and the Great Backlash narrative. I think this plan can serve as one means of countering it, while simultaneously being a great organizing tool. Let me know what you think of this idea in the comments, or clue me in to other ideas you are working with or have read elsewhere.