Sane Progressive - Attacking Democrats and Marchers from the "Left" - Sock Puppet in Action

[TomCADem]

I think the last few weeks have really exposed the "Sane Progressive" as a sock puppet trying to spread dissent on the left. Initially, she attacked Hillary Clinton as a strong Bernie Sanders supporter, and her videos were often posted here. However, when Bernie Sanders supported Hillary, she strongly turned on him for betraying "progressive values." She attacked both Elizabeth Warren and President Obama for endorsing Hillary because the FBI's findings were incomplete.

More recently, she has attacked reports that Russia was trying to influence the election. She has continued to attack prominent Democrats, most notably Cory Booker, as being corporatist, while giving Trump himself a relative free pass despite his heavy reliance on the financial and oil industry in filling his cabinet.

Most recently, she attacked marchers and inauguration day protesters while again giving Trump a relative free pass:

By now most folks on DU recognize that the "Sane Progressive" is not really a progressive, but a sock puppet who attacks Democrats from the "left" and runs interference for Trump.

But, it is something to be aware of when looking for progressive media, particularly those speakers who are hosted on propaganda outlets like Russia Today. Now, they may very well be sincere, but they are being used as tools just like Alan Colmes was when he was on Fox News with Sean Hannity representing the liberal viewpoint.

Now, I do believe that Colmes was actually a liberal, unlike the Sane Progressive for whom I have some serious doubts. But, Colmes was used as a sock puppet to express the liberal viewpoint, then Sean Hannity and other right wing guests would yell over and shout him down making him look meek in the process.

Russia Today will often edit and highlight its liberal hosts in order to push Russia's interests or redirect progressive anger away from Trump and toward Trump's political opponents. Here they are attacking Cory Booker, the Washington Post, the CIA, and the U.S. media, but using progressive sounding language.

https://www.rt.com/shows/watching-the-hawks/373665-booker-pharma-giuliani-cybersecurity/

Put another way, why is Russia Today losing money hiring well known personalities like Larry King, Ed Schultz and various political pundits funding news and programming on both the left and right? Why host Flynn and Jill Stein? Ultimately, Russia Today is not necessarily Republican or Democrat, they are Russian, and will try to gain allies and undermine perceived enemies regardless of which party they might be in.

In other words, watch out for so-called progressive media that even now focuses mainly on attacking Democrats. Republicans control all three branches of government, and Trump is setting the agenda. Attacking Democrats who are most prominent in attacking Trump should give Democrats pause, particularly if the headlines being pushed are targeted against Democrats.

[Cha]

1. If you have to say "Sane".. you're protesting too much.

Thank you, Tom

[truebluegreen]

2. uh, no.

Someone who attacks Democrats from the left =/= a Trump stooge

Someone who attacks Democrats from the left is someone who wants to return the Party to its farther-left, worker-friendly, people's party roots which, based on the recent elections, we need to do.

[TomCADem]

3. So Opposing Marchers and Inauguration Protesters is...

...actually progressive? Crazy.

My take is if you are making similar attacks on the protesters, Democrats and Marchers as a right wing pundit, then you are right wing.

Claiming that in your heart you are a progressive while giving Republicans a free pass does not cut it. It is like Conway saying we should ignore what Trump says and focus on what is in his heart.

[truebluegreen]

4. You lumped a bunch of things together

and seemed to claim all of them were the actions of a RW stooge. I have a problem with that, especially when you apply it across the board.

It seems obvious to me that some "Democrats" could afford to be more small-d democratic. Apparently some formerly-Democratic voters in very important states agreed.

[TomCADem]

5. Have You Listened to the Video That Is The Point of the Post?

Or, even other videos by the so-called, Sane Progressive?

If you want to defend her, then fine, but don't try to do so, but it seems like you referring to some other generic "RW stooge."

This is why I linked the video, but feel free to check out her other videos. I think she is instructive because many folks on DU posted her videos during the primaries, but now that the election is over, you can see that she is hardly pushing any sort of progressive agenda save to attack Democrats. It is not issues based, but entirely partisan.

Put another way, the big issues are Republican proposals, Trump's nominees and foreign affairs. This is happening and its big. Yet, when you have "progressives" largely ignoring such issues, and attacking Democrats and Marchers from the "left," then you should be critical and not accept so-called "progressives" at face value.

Just as you can't dismiss all critics from left, and I think The Nation and Mother Jones offer some very valid critiques from the left, we should be careful of folks like the Sane Progressive, who merely offer partisan type attacks albeit as a self-described progressive.

[truebluegreen]

6. Some might disagree that Democrats are "progressive"

on anything but social issues. They are entitled to hold that opinion without being labeled as stooges for the right-wing. I object to the black and white thinking (with us or agin us!) that has become so virulent, particularly since 11/9. The Sane Progressive is not the only "progressive" who shouldn't be accepted at face value.

[TomCADem]

12. But This Board is Democratic Underground

It is one thing to offer critiques, but to repeatedly attack Democrats for not being progressive enough and ignore the actions of Republicans who are actually in power is disingenuous and feeds that Jane Stein/Susan Sarandon narrative that there is no difference between the parties or candidates.

[DanTex]

8. Uh, yes. Anyone who advocated for a third party vote, or argued that Trump and Hillary

were equally bad, is very much a Trump stooge. The only people who benefit from that are the GOP, and everyone knows this. Trump knows it and his stooges know it as well.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. I was at the March in Los Angeles.

I would have held the coat of her lily white privileged ass if she would have called the protesters, many of whom were black, brown, and Asian, chumps to their faces. Good thing she pontificates from her lily white hamlet in homogeneous as Hell Vermont. She looks like she thinks she is too good to ride the Red Line to get to the march at Pershing Square with us multi-color plebeians, any way.

I flatulate in the direction of armchair bourgeoisie revolutionaries.

[SidDithers]

14. Sure. Go with that...

Sid

[dionysus]

7. This lady is a smug, whiney, ramble machine... people actually watch this stuff?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. Wow. She said the Towers came down from a demolition.

How does this make her different from clowns like Sandy Hook truthers like Alex Jones who said the shooting never happened ?

[dionysus]

15. She isnt...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. I never believed the LIHOP or MIHOP camps.

I do think there was an intelligence failure in the Bush administration in every sense of the word.

[dionysus]

17. Me too. Gross incompetance.

[boston bean]

9. That woman needs to be involuntary committed.

[ismnotwasm]

13. A lot of people are taken in by this bullshit

Unfortunately