Why I’m Quitting Blogging At The Huffington Post

I’ll keep this short. As I wrote this morning, writing for the Huffington Post has been one of the great joys of my life for the past few years and I’ve been proud to be associated with them.

But as a writer, this latest move by The Huffington Post of banning Andrew Breitbart from their front page (because of comments he made to a different website) is both unprecedented, arbitrary and deeply offensive to the intellectual openness that Arianna Huffington has purported to believe in.

Although I’ve had a number of pieces featured there, I’m certainly not a huge presence at HuffPost so in that sense, I don’t expect this move on my part to make much of a ripple but I can’t in good conscience support this awful, short sighted move by the site that I loved.

Addendum: One very loathsome  aspect of this story is something that Huffington Post editor Roy Sekoff told me in a long phone call about Andrew Breitbart several months ago. Roy knows and worked with Andrew and when the issue of Andrew Breitbart being a racist came up, Roy told me “No, of course Andrew isn’t a racist.”

Roy went on to say that while both he and Arianna Huffington knew that the charges of racism being hurled at Andrew weren’t true based on their years of personal dealings with him that they were in a ‘bad position’ to say anything about it.

Politics is a contact sport, but not defending someone you know personally and know the truth about is pretty poor conduct. To stand by and watch their reputation ruined and do nothing when all you have to do is say ‘I know him and that’s not true” is shameful.

Arianna is also friends with Van Jones so I’d apply the same standard there…and, in fact, Arianna HAS publically defended Van Jones at length. The problem is that defending Breitbart would be much less popular among her liberal friends then defending Jones.

There’s a word for that, but it might sound like ad hominem.

95 Comments

  1. Bravo! Can’t say that I don’t blame you.

    Reply
  2. Lee, your integrity gets 2 thumbs up from me.

    Reply
  3. Never get out of the boat. Umless you’re going all the way.

    Good luck to you!

    Reply
  4. “Racist” and “race-baiter” aren’t the same thing. In some ways, being a race-baiter might be worse. If you’re a race-baiter but not racist, that means that you know that skin color doesn’t matter, but you nevertheless exploit racism for political gain.

    Color of change said that Breitbart uses race-baiting. The post did not claim he was racist. Since you are so interested in “honest dialogue” and “intellectual openness,” perhaps you can correct your post.

    Reply
  5. As my piece clearly states, I had this conversation months ago and so it had nothing to do with what CoC said yesterday.

    Reply
  6. Your post suggests that Huffington and Sekoff are doing something wrong by not arguing with CoC even though they know “Breitbart is not racist.” However, CoC did not claim that Breitbart was racist, so the argument in your Addendum falls apart. Huffington and Sekoff might know that Breitbart is not personally racist but still think that he uses race-baiting to push his political agenda.

    Reply
  7. “much less popular among her liberal friends THAN defending Van Jones”

    Reply
  8. Like any good corporatist, Arianna must answer to her shareholders and the BOD. Since AOL BOD is not likely to be stupid, they are aware of HuffPo’s liberal leanings. My bet is that they didn’t approve of Breitbart from the beginning, but they let Arianna steer the ship anyway. Breitbart’s statement to the Daily Caller just gave the BOD the ammunition they needed to force Arianna to remove Breitbart’s preferred posting status.

    AOL has managed to stay under the radar for years…and that is good, since they are the quintessential tech boom/bust 2000 recession bringing down Time-Warner company. The last thing they want now is more controversy. The last thing they want is another bad acquisition. Did I say that it is likely the BOD is not stupid?

    Reply
  9. I’m honestly surprised Arianna gave in. As I was saying to one of the other folks here via twitter this afternoon, I didn’t think CoC was making their case very well, and taken together with what Arianna said about the hits she got after one or the other of Breitbart’s recent appearances at HuffPo, I thought it was a done deal. I guess those reports about her wanting to broaden the focus from left-leaning site to news/entertainment site were somewhat less than accurate. (That’s the only reason I can fathom. It isn’t personal or ideological animosity; Otherwise she never would’ve invited him.) My only other question is-because I wasn’t following the story that closely, and just assumed eveyone had it right-are we absolutely sure that Breitbart was supposed to be getting a steady gig there, and it wasn’t meant to be a one-off or occasional thing?

    That said-and assuming the slight is confirmed, a big thumbs up for your standing up for what you believe and what you believe in. I gladly join with those saying good for you. Whatever I may think of your ideas, I would never question your integrity. You’ve consitently showed yourself to be a stand up guy. And, I’m certain there’s a bigger better place for you at one of Breitbart’s sites, should you want it. If not, your following here seems to be getting bigger by the day. It’s a blank page, and the world is your oyster.

    Reply
  10. Congratulations. Please enjoy your, what, probably two to three weeks on limited internet fame. It’s been years since we’ve had a “the party left me, I didn’t leave the party” song of sadness. So welcome to Wingnut Hell and don’t let Breitbart convince you to finance your journalistic endeavors for him on your own credit cards. As James O’Keefe could tell you, that way lies public panhandling and humiliation. Although, in O’Keefe’s case, his whole life has been a string of public humiliations so he’s probably kind of used to it.

    Reply
  11. (Yeah, I know one of Lee’s links may answer my «one off vs regular thing» query. Kindle. Can’t get there from here. ((Now, if anyone wants to donate to the “get James a shiny new laptop” fund, so I can participate at night like one of the big boys, I’m all about acceptance. In the meantime, I spout off from the top of my head, with only some of the info at my fingertips. Best I can do…))

    Reply
  12. Beyond words. Really. Huffpo bending to CoC. Their loss.

    carry on

    Reply
  13. Adam — I have no idea why you’re still confused. I was sharing a story that happened MONTHS ago. Long before this CoC thing. Got. It?

    Reply
  14. So there IS somebody at HuffPo with integrity. Well not anymore, but at least for a bit.

    Reply
  15. Used the Google and read the Alex Parrente [sp?] piece at Slate. The story is it’s about AB’s ad hom attacks on Van Jones served up at The Daily Caller, which I find only barely plausable. (The ad hom was distasteful, but it’s hardly surprising. AB ain’t no king of civility, on his best day. And yes, others on the HuffPo front page have also been uncivil, one way or another.)

    As I said above, I suspect Arianna wasn’t quite ready to give up that “liberal blog” mantle, and didn’t foresee the criticism she was going to get for promoting AB on that front page.

    Nothing to make me rethink that thumbs up for Lee. While I’m happy to have less/less prominent AB at HuffPo, I also think the way it’s coming about is a little hinky.

    Reply
  16. Adam,

    What Lee is saying is that a conversation he had with Arianna and someone else months ago in which he claims that they said “We know that Andrew Brietbart is not racist but we’re going to stand by and let the world destroy his reputation anyway by calling him a racist” is shameful evidence of just how mean they are to Brietbart, and has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of Brietbart now being taken off the front page of the Huffpo.

    Lee writing “One very loathsome aspect of this story” should not be construed to mean that it has any connection whatsoever to this story, that is, the current issue about Brietbart being taken off the Huffpost front page, which is what this post was about. Nothing at all. Stranahan was writing this post about that subject and then remembered a conversation entirely unrelated to it, and wrote about it.

    Lee, I think you’re a very good candidate to be an Andrew Brietbart disciple. Couldn’t ask for better.

    Reply
  17. Adam,

    What Lee is saying is that a conversation he had with Arianna and someone else months ago in which he claims that they said “We know that Andrew Breitbart is not racist but we’re going to stand by and let the world destroy his reputation anyway by calling him a racist” is shameful evidence of just how mean they are to Breitbart, and has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of Breitbart now being uninvited to post on front page of the Huffpo.

    Lee writing “One very loathsome aspect of this story” should not be construed to mean that it has any connection whatsoever to this story, that is, the current issue about Brietbart being taken off the Huffpost front page, which is what this post was about. Nothing at all. Stranahan was writing this post about that subject and then remembered a conversation entirely unrelated to it, and wrote about it. By “this story”, he clearly meant some other story, the earlier conversation perhaps.

    Lee, I think you’re a very good candidate to be an Andrew Brietbart disciple. Couldn’t ask for better.

    Reply
  18. Arianna Huffington is completely full of it. Always has been. The idea that she’d ever truly embrace a climate of “intellectual openness” is laughable.

    Reply
  19. In the short run the right is winning.

    In the long run the right is winning.

    They’re a team, right or wrong.

    We hold our cherished ethics and values, no matter how trite the issue, above the greater good.

    Our high horse has simply gotten too high.

    Reply
  20. So HuffPo is banning race-baiting, Adam? That’s hilarious.

    Reply
  21. I’ve been posting on line almost daily for three years and the only two sites that have banned me to date are HuffPo and DailyKos. Go figure, huh? So much for Liberal “tolerance”.

    Reply
  22. It’s not like this is the first reputation ruined by shoddy reporting from the Huffington Post. It’s just the first Liberal. Howz it feel???

    Reply
  23. The big joke is, Mr. Stranahan, that it took you a few years to realize Huffington doesn’t really practice “intellectual openness.” Did you spend that whole time thinking she did? That she really wasn’t sold out to the far left? That that didn’t reflect in what she published, how she published it, etc., “among her liberal friends”? Good thing you walked away; I however, would run.

    Reply
  24. Leftist belief is essentially totalitarian. Those on the left who aren’t that way usually, eventually, turn to the right.

    Reply
  25. Doing the right thing is hard. I don’t necessarily agree with you all the time, but it’s clear you’re doing the hard thing when it matters. On target; fire for effect.

    Reply
  26. dang close tag…

    Reply
  27. Lee, I’m just recently acquainted with your writing, so I don’t have a long history of your work from which to draw an opinion of you, but I do recognize integrity when I see it. Carry on.

    Reply
  28. A good principled decision. Kudos.

    It does seem at times that Lefties are all for diversity and free speech . . . except when they disagree with it.

    Reply
  29. Race-baiting presupposes one or more characteristics of a particular race. It would have no function otherwise. How is it not racist?

    Reply
  30. He is a racist he needs tobe off paper social network and good for u to go with him do me that favor!

    Reply
  31. While we probably disagree on 80% of political issues, you are a man of integrity and credit to journalism. Best of luck sir.

    Reply
  32. Excuse me, but does anyone believe that the Huffington Post does not have a liberal agenda? Any farther left and it would be in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

    Reply
  33. Good call, Lee. You did the right thing. I only wish that there were more people on the left with your integrity, style and class. It would make an honest debate on the merits a reality.

    Reply
  34. Kudos to having standards – and to living by ‘em, Lee. We need more like you.

    Reply
  35. Just a point: Breitbart’s intellectual dishonesty was a blot on the (intended) reputation of HuffPo. The piece he initially wrote celebrating the virtues of James O’Keefe, contained misdirection, out-right lies and half-truths. The day before that piece ran, Glenn Beck’s (!) website had thoroughly discredited O’Keefe, yet Arianna chose to run Breitbart’s column anyway, with no mention until the following Monday of the inaccuracies in O’Keefe’s NPR video. Breitbart should not have been allowed to run his column to begin with, in my opinion–not because I disagree with him, but because it was a piece about O’Keefe’s journalistic integrity, which does not exist.

    Reply
  36. Lee, kudos to you. It is refreshing to see someone that feels ‘comfortable’ posting the majority of articles on a left-leaning (or even a right-leaning) site take that site to task. It shows that you have integrity, something that is lacking in journalism these days.

    If I could buy stock in you, I’d plop down a bundle…. that is, unless CoC would see that as an investment in the enemy..

    Reply
  37. I’m not surprised by Arianna’s attitude; moderators at Huffington Post have been banning comments in the comments sections following blog posts from conservatives for years. It’s a constant problem; any comment that dissents from liberal orthodoxy is summarily refused, despite being presented in fair language, without epithets or ad hominem attacks. Any writer who isn’t a liberal ideologue should think long and hard about their collaboration with Huffington Post. Credibility does matter to some readers. I applaud your principled choice.

    Reply
  38. In four years I have never been able to get a comment posted at HuffPo. No bad language, no ad hominems, just disagreement with the leftist monolith. They are the biggest censors on the web.

    Reply
  39. Lee, I respectfully disagree with your decision to vacate the HuffPo blog. Widely read, the HuffPo remains an excellent venue for your principled positions to be heard. Continuing to post there will do more to fight the hypocrisy than refusing to continue, right?

    Reply
  40. I don’t know who the H CoC is but I recognize that type of Porch Monkey. Why should I have to put up with cowards restricting my accesss to points of vierw because of niggers like that. They may be WASPS for all I know but they sound like they think thwey are HNIC’s. I will kill on sight. Literally.

    Civilization is in danger from many real enimies, among them some so-called liberals, people like the Koch Brothers, and some of the folks from the Jihad movement. The need to be combatted by all means available…not just all means necessary.

    Reply
  41. Race baiting my azz! I’m sick of having to walk on eggshells around the subject of race. The race mongers on the left want to be able to Tawana Brawley all they want but if someone on the right tries to state some tough truths about minorities all of a sudden it’s race baiting. Come on. This stuff is so lame. Its like those car alarms than no one pays attention to because they go off for no reason but every once in a while a car is being burglarized when one is going off. Same with you lefty racetards, you’ve pulled the race card so many times when it was unwarranted that when real racism occurs it will be ignored. Cry wolf anyone?

    Reply
  42. Without racial animosity, half the reason for HuffPo disappears. It’s the premise they base almost all of their “outrageously outraged outrage!…” hit pieces on.

    Reply
  43. Well Arianna does has to answer to George Soros. Be careful Lee or you may find yourself a target of the thugs on the left too. Hopefully many others on the left are also beginning to see the hypocrisy and dishonesty of their so called leaders.

    Reply
  44. BTW Briebart doesn’t race bait.. the only race-baiting I’ve ever seen comes from the left..

    Reply
  45. Let me see if I have this right:

    If I say “green people are inferior to us orange people”, and I really believe it to be true, then it’s racism, but if I don’t actually believe it but I’m just saying it to cause trouble, it’s race-baiting?

    Sounds to me like Democrats are looking for the rebuttal-proof race card.

    Reminds me of the chemical-dependency-treatment-industry’s assertions, some years ago, that a denial that alcohol use was adversely affecting your life was one of the most telling signs that alcohol use was adversely affecting your life.

    This is as dishonest of a political tactic as I’ve seen anywhere, any time. Y’all cannot defend your egregious resort to ad-hom attacks to get discussions away from substantive points that make you look bad with a simple “yes, you’re racist – no, I’m not” approach anymore – you need to be able to completely shut down argument with your new version of “have you stopped beating your wife?”

    Grow some honor – if you cannot substantively defend your positions, might it be because they’re truly indefensible?

    Reply
  46. Can’t blame you and since you wrote for them, but did not post comments (assuming here) then maybe you are not aware just how heavy handed their censorship is. I used to try and really debate their, but 30% of my posts were censored. I never used a profane word, or commented about another commenter personally. I am a fairly good debater and used facts and figures to back up my positions, but the censors would prevent the most damaging comments.

    It is good you has disassociated from them. It shows integrity and courage. I disagree with most things Progressive ( I am Libertarian), but I respect those that honorably defend their positions and stay civil.

    Huffington Post has deteriorated into a place where like minded folks keep repeating the same things over and over again and their beliefs are not allowed to be challenged.

    Reply
  47. Lee, a good move. One never knows if the people who bandy “racist” around so readily actually mean it, know what they are doing, care, or having just to much fun viciously insulting people to notice. I have never understood how an entire movement, the Tea Party, could be known as racist. There must have been some really good close up TV shots to so inform what are still called liberals. Then again, it’s a great mechanism by which to release bile while helping one’s self image. All this is especially interesting as it was Obama who spent twenty years in Reverend Wright’s church, unknown for it’s racial comity. In better times all this would be drolly humorous.

    Reply
  48. Can the commenters at Huff-n-Puff be banned for ad hominems, too? There’d be nobody left.

    Reply
  49. Using race-baiting to push a political agenda?

    That pretty much defines the Democratic Party and every liberal journalist.

    My God, from the get-go, no lefty could talk about the Tea Party without commenting about how ‘white’ it was. In fact, its ‘whiteness’ was/is an obsession of most lefty journalists/pundits.

    Reply
  50. While I admire your willingness to take a stand that will be lost on the paragons of civility and free thought that populate the Huffington Post, I almost stopped reading at the point at which you proclaim:

    “….is both unprecedented, arbitrary and deeply offensive….”

    Where I come from the word “both” implies two items. Just another example of why someone should have a fresh set of eyes proof an article.

    Otherwise, fight the good fight.

    Reply
  51. Lee, I admit to not being familiar with your blogging. I also assure you that I will look for your name now, and will always be interested in reading what you are thinking and discussing on issues. Anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty left in them, is able to see the ethical and logical dysfunction of this cascade of events. When things do not “add up”, you can ususally know you do not have all the information…your background helps to fill in the puzzle piece missing from this sequence of events. I admire your integrity (meaning whole as a sum of the parts of yourself) and that of Anderw B, regardless of position. I cannot say the same for the disingenous and manipulative behavior of Van Jones, HuffPo on this issue, and Arianna Huffington on most issues. Thank you for keeping your light on.

    Reply
  52. If there is one group with the credibility to identify and condemn “race baiting,” it’s a race-based political advocacy group that calls itself “Color of Change.” Because it’s not “baiting” when your race-based political pandering is overt.

    Reply
  53. I congratulate you on doing what few men do these days, act on a matter of personal honor. We may not agree politically, but you’ve gotten more respect from this than you know.

    I can’t imagine anyone could consider Huff n Puff anything close to civil. I’ve seen too many of their pieces go the “why are conservatives so stupid yet diabolically evil” route. Early on I tried commenting there, and they don’t tolerate dissenting voices for very long. Any site that posts Alec Baldwin, then claims that they care about civility?

    They can post who they like, you won’t find all that many on the right claiming they should silence anyone.

    and the race baiter isn’t calling someone a racist and you must retract and apologise nonsense? The auther’s right it was in the article he based his opinion on a months old call. and………… seriously? in this day and age, does anyone anywhere truly believe when you call someone a “race baiter”, oh no,… you didn’t mean they are racist racist, not like “RAPE rape,”.. no they just play with racism for personal gain,… and no one would just assume that’s what Van Jones meant.. heh….

    right,… if you think in this culture race baiter hasn’t become synonimous with racist, then you must think gay just means happy and carefree…. times and context matter, and Van Jones damn well meant it as a slur, with the Huffington Post looking the other way so as not to offend the peanut gallery with a truth they won’t like.

    Reply
  54. While I agree with your decision, Lee, I think what Adam is saying is that you are conflating two events.

    On the one hand, you are claiming that Arianna et al should have defended Breitbart against false charges of racism months ago, but on the other hand, you are complaining that they banned him just recently.

    Adam’s point is that the ostensible reason they banned him was that CoC accused him of being a race-baiter, which is unconnected with the earlier complaints of racism.

    Thus, it seems as though you are talking past each other. That’s how I see it, anyway.

    Reply
  55. Is there any chance you are leaving huffpo because your new sugar daddy told you to?

    I told you to kiss your career goodbye when you chose to run with the Edwards story. Not because you were right/wrong but because that was the story YOU chose when you chose it.

    Now your turncoat posts are getting some attention from the worst among us. Huzzah!

    You’ve run to the flip side of the same coin to cry about partisanship dressed up as journalism.

    You have about 2 minutes 45 seconds left of your 15 minutes of conservafame.

    enjoy it

    Reply
  56. Well done, Lee. I appreciate a principled stand these days… they’re far too rare.

    Reply
  57. 1/ A racist and a race-baiter are sitting on a bench.
    2/ Along comes an event, or a public policy announcement, or a political speech, or a blog posting, about some completely race-neutral matter, like tax policy or war-making or health care.
    3/ The racist ignores every relevant aspect of the situation and zeroes in on some “racial” angle, how ever tangential it might be, and interprets the whole event through that lens, and proclaims how this proves him right about “those people.” We believe he’s sincere, because at the beginning of this example we’d already designated him as the racist.
    4/ The race-baiter ignores every relevant aspect of the situation and zeroes in on some “racial” angle, how ever tangential it might be, and interprets the whole event through that lens, and proclaims how this proves him right about “those other people.” We believe he’s insincere, and just faking his bigotry.
    5/ Do we have to pick which of them is the bigger scumbag? We can’t; there only was one ass sitting on that bench in the first place. Because if you THINK LIKE a racist, duh, you are one.
    6/ Van Jones, I’m looking at you.

    Reply
  58. Good for you. One more strike against the tyranny of the minority. ‘News outlets’ that exist only to spin, slant and filter the truth are a greater danger to our freedoms than any blatant aggressor with a bomb.

    Reply
  59. So, you knew MONTHS ago? Long before this CoC thing? What, were you “in a bad position”?
    I wonder what your liberal friends would have thought.

    Reply
  60. Welcome to The Dark Side, Lee – we have cookies! (And we use REAL ingredients…..)

    Reply
  61. Bye, no loss, don’t let the door hit you on your behind. Racists like Brietbart and apologists for him have no ‘right’ to be on a private site.

    Reply
  62. Lee, who exactly called Breitbart racist? If you claim that Color of Change did, then you’re wrong. They said that he was race-baiting, both in the current controversy and when they previously got him kicked off of ABC’s election night coverage. If you mean a bunch of random people on Twitter, then who cares? Why should Huffington and Sekoff be concerned with what random people on Twitter say? If you mean, Shirley Sherrod, well yes she did call Breitbart racist. But that was only after he called her racist, and “backed it up” with misleadingly edited video.

    Reply
  63. A lesson I learned a long time ago: I never risk a sleepless night wrestling with my conscience when I follow my principles.

    I think that those who feel no guilt after selling out their stated principles are either liars about their principles; or they are, at least, borderline sociopaths.

    Reply
  64. Good for you! From a woman’s perspective: I use to read HuffPo and comment, and thought I was getting a “well-rounded” feel of the political spectrum. However, the last 2-3 years of slurs, degrading remarks and one-sided supposed journalism covering Palin was enough for me. Never before did I see such outright misogynistic comments levied against a woman that was welcomed with praise! By a political party that is supposed to be the champion of women’s’ rights! Even this latest round of revolting name calling by Bill Maher was excused away by the HuffPo – It’s disgusting. Every once in a while I go back, like a battered but loyal dog, to see if they’ve changed at all and they’ve just become nastier. Now HuffPo feels it’s appropriate to insult any woman that’s not a democrat or disagrees with their agenda. Thank you for following your moral compass!

    Reply
  65. Just for the record, in case someone cares, “ad hominem” actually has a meaning. It refers to arguing “against the man”, not the argument. So, if I say, “The sun rises in the West,” and you say (perhaps correctly), “Only an idiot like you would say that”, then your response, considered as an argument against my claim, is ad hominem. However, if you simply remark that I am well and widely known to be an idiot, subspecies blithering, that is a personal attack, but it is not ad hominem. Actually, it is a different fallacy, known as “appeal to authority”, although in this case, the authority is unnamed.

    Reply
  66. Given that the left are having fits, and pulling out all their fascistic moves, because they don’t like seeing their own words and actions held up to scrutiny, it’s most telling. While I don’t agree with Breitbart on everything, I’ve never seen or read him act in a racist, or “race baiting” manner. If they can’t stomach their vile words and behavior being discussed, because they can’t in any way justify said words and behaviors, thus the storm trooper tactics.

    I’m really proud of Lee for taking a principled stand on behalf of real ethics, commitment to the principles of free speech, and all constitutionally protected rights and freedoms.

    Reply
  67. “. But that was only after he called her racist, and “backed it up” with misleadingly edited video.”

    Heh. You’re new here, aren’t you?

    Reply
  68. She’s painting herself into an awkward corner. I doubt AOL wanted to buy into a pure leftist brand. In fact, allowing Breitbart on the front page looked like she was beginning the balancing act. Breitbart was a good choice, too — a muckraker and a more exciting figure than so many conservative columnists.

    Now what? If she only hires conservatives that are acceptable to her current base, she will definitely not pick up any righty readership. The left’s pet conservatives are bo-ring to the right. Or positively irritating.

    Reply
  69. Wow thank you Lee for being honest and straight forward, and Kudos for your integrity. Your bookmarked here now.

    Reply
  70. All a blog site has is its principles, when they are gone so to shall the site disappear, ask Charles Johnson. I of course have only recently followed your writing because of your work with Andrew Breitbart and your principles in work and friendship will ensure you will be around a lot longer in the future then Huffington Post.

    Reply
  71. Wow. That they know him personally but would not defend him is truly low.

    Reply
  72. Way to do the right thing, Lee. It is refreshing to see in today’s politically polarized society.

    I do have to take issue with people like Adam who still call the video of Sherod misleading. While her comments seemed less offensive in full context, they were still racist and offensive comments. She did not renounce her feelings towards the white farmer, just decided to take pitty and help him. And the crowd she was speaking to clearly cheered on her racism. Not sure why so many refuse to see that.

    Reply
  73. So, you are quitting because you just found out that words (and actions) have repercussions? Congratulations, you’re a big boy now. In the restaurant industry in Waikiki, if you drunkly decide to trash a bar that isn’t the one you work at on Friday and your boss hears about it, except to be FIRED on Monday, not pushed to the back of the house. How’s defending the 2nd biggest right-winged liar in journalism working out for you? (#1 is his friend and felon, James O’Keefe)

    Reply
  74. Andrew, that is the nature of the left. No integrity. Their ideology trumps everything.

    Reply
  75. I guess this means it is safe to return to Huffington Post now that Breitbart is relegated to the dustbin of the site. I left the site when he was hired; not because I can’t handle opinions I don’t agree with, but because Breitbart writes fiction disguised as fact. He has no scruples, whatever scruples are.

    Reply
  76. I’m in favor of banning known liars.

    Reply
  77. Why believe that someone’s reputation is ruined by being slammed by the HuffPo or their fellow travelers? It doesn’t seem to be that Breitbart is suffering. Sometimes the best gauge of a person’s quality is the enemies they make. Breitbart has enemies we should all want, and good for him!

    Reply
  78. Well, I did have some hope for getting some balance on HuffPo by having a strong, intelligent conservative share a different viewpoint. It has been getting harder and harder to read some of the postings and the comments that follow. I too have challenged some of the positions or information posted there and was shocked at the vitriol coming from so many “open-minded”, “inclusive” liberals. This type of reaction to any perceived apostasy has become tiresome. Fascists seek to shut down dissenting opinions by a variety of methods, including the politics of personal destruction. Sound familiar?

    Reply
  79. Just curious does Breitbart have liberal Bloggers? Do people know that the first amendment refers to the Government suppressing free speech?

    Reply
  80. You’re in the process of becoming a conservative

    Enjoy the ride, it’s going to be interesting

    Reply
  81. Lovedinthekeys, how did you ever get it in your mind that you would ever find any kind of “balance” at the Huffington Post? Don’t you know that facts hold absolutely no water with liberals? We conservatives and Constitutionalists only read the Huffington-Puffington Post so that we have an idea of what “they” (the so-called progressives) are cooking up in their little heads.
    To expect Ariana Huffington, who is a rare conservative-turned-liberal, to change her ways and beliefs roughly equates to expecting a cinderblock to turn into an oyster shell, complete with a live oyster inside. In other words, not gonna happen, pal.
    I truly admire your noble intentions that presuppose reasonable debate, but I tell you that anymore I VERY rarely respond to comments because usually comment strings turn into vitriolic hurling and insults between different parties. This happens on most news-article threads I read. I am very pleased to admit that this thread has not been one of them, and I openly thank most of all who have posted here for remaining civil. Nine times out of ten I reply to comments by saying I need a shower because I feel so sullied. It is awfully nice to view some respectful commentary.
    Don’t forget that quartz is quartz, and no matter what you do, you can’t make a diamond out of it.

    Reply
  82. Lee, welcome. You’ll find that in general, libertarians and conservatives are a bit more tolerant of varying points of view than “liberals” (those are air-quotes).

    Reply
  83. I’m going to repost this since nobody saw it from their high horsese…

    “Just curious does Breitbart have liberal Bloggers? Do people know that the first amendment refers to the Government suppressing free speech?”

    can someone link to all the liberal bloggers on Breitbart’s site? Thanks in advance!!

    BTW, if you can’t, save me the time and call yourself and him hypocrites. Take care now.

    Reply
  84. Hat tip to you Lee . I stand with you .

    Reply
  85. Yes. People heard you. They ignored you because of the old adage their mothers taught them about making fun of retards.

    Breitbart is a CONSERVATIVE that was invited to blog on a supposedly NEUTRAL POLITICAL SITE. (I am currently using Anne Sullivan finger techniques on the side of your cheek.)

    I guess you are saying that HUFF PO is leftist. Thank you for the clarification.

    Reply
  86. “Yes. People heard you. They ignored you because of the old adage their mothers taught them about making fun of retards.”

    So the link to liberals blogging on Breitbart’s site is where, exactly? I missed it, can you post it again?

    “Breitbart is a CONSERVATIVE [HACK] that was invited to blog on a supposedly NEUTRAL POLITICAL SITE. ”

    Right…so you don’t want hacks out there saying stupid things when you are going to neutrality, right? So you agree with this move?

    “I guess you are saying that HUFF PO is leftist. Thank you for the clarification.”

    HuffPo is a joke, either way. Brietbart is a worse joke, and whining about a hack getting less exposure (when simple journalistic meritocracy would lead to the same conclusion), is just pretty sad.

    Reply
  87. Lee,
    Thank you for being a principled person. I hope more in the media will follow your example.

    Reply
  88. Mr. Kersten in Minnesota of the Star Tribune pointed out your willingness to condemn the left’s ‘see-no-evil-non-reporting’ of the violence in Wisconsin. Thank you Lee!

    “Proven death threats against politicians are being ignored by the supposedly honest media. … Ignoring the story of these threats is deeply, fundamentally wrong. It’s bad, biased journalism that will lead to no possible good outcome, and progressives should be leading the charge against it.”

    Reply
  89. Darn, and just when I was going to check out HuffPo because our President cited it as a reliable news source. Well, I guess we now know what he means by reliable.

    Reply
  90. Lee, please come write for Patrick.net! I would love for someone like you to write articles for my home page. I never ban anyone for their political views.

    Reply
  91. Have fun, Lee. With this pompous and self-serving gesture, you’re earning brownie points from all those self-avowed “principled conservatives” here who are pontificating about their tolerance in the first sentence, while trashing mild questioners in the next. They only embrace you because you’re a defector from the other side and a current poster boy supposedly vindicating those “principles” they like to tout so loudly and grandiosely, without much self-reflection or criticism.

    I wonder how long it’ll take you to wise up to the reality awaiting you in your new home. Mind you, as a defector, you’ll enjoy special perks and privileges longer than customary, but this honeymoon will end, no doubt, perhaps sooner than you hope. I’ll be watching for your “Why I’m quitting blogging on BigGov site” in the (near?) future.

    BTW, I used to be on your side during your debates with Cesca, but with this move, you’ve lost my support (not that you’re going to miss it, I realize that).

    Reply
  92. Lee,

    This is a well written, thoughtful piece. While you know that I’m conservative (although I suspect I would likely surprise you in certain areas now), I genuinely respect the integrity evident here and in “Arianna Shrugs”. I appreciate your fundamental decency and sense of fair play. Proud of you, really. Interesting that you’re still leaning on Rand. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. :-)

    Reply
  93. Lee,
    I am so sad for our loss of Andrew Brietbart today, knowing how you are known for being “so honest with integrity”, regardless of your political leanings. Your mutual interest with Andrew, and courage in fighting political corruption has got you in hot water, but you stood your ground … and our hero is gone … I hope someone steps forward with you for our common future, even though I, a conservative, and you, a liberal, both have common backgrounds; you trained me with Lightwave 3-D animation, twice, in both Dallas, then later years in Denver. Good luck with your challenges … I have been keeping up with you.

    Reply

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. LIVE AT FIVE – 03.25.11 : The Other McCain - [...] To Leaders’ Summit BLOGS & STUFF Cubachi: Michele Bachmann Forms Exploratory Committee Lee Stranahan: Why I’m Quitting Blogging At …
  2. Huffington Post, one in exile and one abandons them « Da Techguy's Blog - [...] Stranahan decided that this is the final straw and has quit the Huffington Post: …as a writer, this latest …
  3. Will the last one at HuffPo please unplug the server? « The Quick and the Dead - [...] Stranahan, who is developing a reputation as the last honest liberal, just quit the Huffington Post over their dumping …
  4. Headlines | The Daily Slog - [...] Answers to Questions Nobody Is Asking “Why I’m Quitting Blogging at the Huffington Post [sic]“–headline, LeeStranahan.com, March 24 [...]
  5. The Huffington Post, Roy Sekoff & Untruth - [...] that article, I talk about something I mentioned here last week – that in a phone conversation a few …
  6. Newsy Stuff – March 28, 2011 | a12iggymom's Blog - [...] Why I’m Quitting Blogging At The Huffington Post http://leestranahan.com/?p=1172 [...]

Leave a Reply