Patterico's Pontifications


New Guest Blogger: Lee Stranahan

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:53 pm

I am thrilled to announce that Lee Stranahan, who blogs at, has agreed to guest blog here at

I am excited about this for several reasons.

First, Lee has recently established himself as a credible voice criticizing media bias and dishonesty among the left. I have linked his work here several times in the last few days, on subjects ranging from how the media ignored death threats against Republican legislators in Wisconsin, to how a dishonest meme spreads among the left, to his decision to quit the Huffington Post due to their mistreatment of Andrew Breitbart.

At every point, Lee has demonstrated his integrity by writing the truth even when it means taking on his ideological brethren. He self-describes as a “pro-choice, pro-single payer, anti-war, pro-gay rights independent liberal with years of work in print and film backing those positions.” But if he catches his side lying, he’ll say so. He has proven it, time and time again.

I can offer no greater testimony than this. Some months ago, Lee asked me for an introduction to Andrew Breitbart. I not only brought them together, but I told Andrew that this particular lefty was someone honest whom he could trust. They ended up talking for hours about Pigford, and now Lee is working for Andrew to expose the fraud and corruption underlying that case. Lee has come to see that the leftist caricature of Andrew Breitbart is a false one . . . and I think that may have opened his eyes to how some on the left operate.

Eventually, I hope to try to foster something almost unheard of in the blogosphere: a full and open debate between honest people from both the left and right. While he has clearly awakened to the way that leftist outlets can conspire to distort the truth and spread false stories, he is still a dyed-in-the-wool lefty, as far as I can tell. And yet . . . an honest one. For years I have been looking for someone like this — someone who disagrees with me on fundamental issues, but with whom I can have a dialogue that is respectful of the issues and the personalities. I’d like for Lee and the commenters here to be a part of that dialogue.

But that’s for the future. For now, Lee is focused like a laser on media bias.

Lee tells me that the Daily Caller is going to be running a piece tomorrow (Monday) about the Huffington Post’s banishment of Andrew Breitbart. As relevant background, when he announced he would no longer blog at HuffPo, Lee wrote:

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.

From what Lee tells me, Sekoff is denying that quote. The Daily Caller will run the story today, including Sekoff’s denial — and some evidence from Lee supporting his claim.

But Lee has more evidence in support of his claim. And he will be detailing it on Monday — here, at

So stay tuned. It should be an interesting day, and an interesting partnership.

And please, welcome Lee Stranahan to the site.

P.S. Aaron Worthing will, of course, remain the regular, daily guest blogger. Lee’s schedule is not fully decided, but he has indicated he may want to post a couple of times a week, perhaps on Mondays and Thursdays. Maybe you guys can help me convince him to post more often. It will help if you give him a warm welcome.

Lurkers are invited to de-lurk to express their opinions. I know you’re there. I see you right now!

P.P.S. The Daily Caller piece is already up here, Sunday night. Stranahan is quoted extensively. It is well done and worth a read.

Stay tuned for Stranahan’s elaboration!

40 Responses to “New Guest Blogger: Lee Stranahan”

  1. You know what I need to do? Change the time to Daylight Savings.

    Be right back.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  2. Oh, and I can’t really “see” anybody. Figure of speech, dontcha know.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  3. Done! Timestamps are now accurate.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  4. Some of the info you mention about Breitbart, Huffington, Stranahan and Sekoff is already up in a post at the DailyCaller, including Sekoff’s denial of the conversation with Stranahan.

    daleyrocks (9b57b3)

  5. honest leftist is like moderate muslim….

    there is no such thing.

    if they were honest they would admit that their ideas and beliefs had long since died on the fields of reality, but instead they just keep trying to shove them down our throats one more time…because this time they will w*rk.

    that he pretends to have suddenly seen even a bit of light strikes me as taqiyya, not a revelation, and the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate otherwise.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  6. Wow, did I just lose and hour or gains an hour or did California secede and declare its own time zone?

    daleyrocks (9b57b3)

  7. Some of the info you mention about Breitbart, Huffington, Stranahan and Sekoff is already up in a post at the DailyCaller, including Sekoff’s denial of the conversation with Stranahan.

    I will look and link.

    Lee was waiting for their piece to publish before he responded, and he has already gone to bed, I think. But he should have something up first thing in the morning.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  8. “there is no such thing.”

    redc1c4 – Having read some of Lee’s recent pieces I disagree. They exhibited integrity. I saw no “pretending” on his part.

    daleyrocks (9b57b3)

  9. So, Sekoff wishes to reserve the right to label Breitbart a racist?

    Quite a guy.

    Icy Texan (5a9fe7)

  10. Oh, and I can’t really “see” anybody. Figure of speech, dontcha know.
    Comment by Patterico — 3/27/2011 @ 10:04 pm

    — Didya hear that, Kman? He can’t see you, so put your f***ing pants back on!

    Icy Texan (5a9fe7)

  11. “pro-choice, pro-single payer, anti-war, pro-gay rights independent liberal…”


    Btw, I think the liberal at the end is kind of redundant.

    I do enjoy it when liberals profess to be anti-war though, It’s kinda like hearing a Nazi describe himself as being pro-Jewish. It doesn’t really come with the territory.

    I’m anti-war and that’s why I share the political philosophies of Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, Jack Kennedy, and LBJ!

    O.k., if you say so.

    Dave Surls (4eba4b)

  12. So, Sekoff wishes to reserve the right to label Breitbart a racist?

    Well, Icy Texan, if you read the Daily Caller piece I have now linked in the post, it is clear that Sekoff does *not* call Breitbart a racist. Indeed (at least through a spokesman) he quite clearly says he does not think that of Breitbart.

    So what part of the conversation with Stranahan does Sekoff deny? I have no idea. I mean, Stranahan hardly attributes to Sekoff anything that Sekoff doesn’t already say through his spokesman.

    I don’t get it. Stranahan is telling the truth, I am certain. What is Sekoff denying here???

    Patterico (c218bd)

  13. Dave Surls,

    And yet, you can’t deny that the guy is honest.

    So give him a warm welcome, and when the conversation eventually turns to politics (as I suspect it will one day), be polite and let him state his case.

    Until then, revel in his whacking the lefties over the head with evidence of their media bias.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  14. @daleyrocks: i see “integrity” as a holistic thing, not an item by item variable.

    this is no different than the gun control Nazi’s who want to restrict my ownership of various pistols, rifles, shotguns and accessories because they have no “legitimate use” but then also claim they are “lifelong hunters” as if the Second Amendment was about hunting and not government power and abuse.

    five will get you ten that our newest commentator is just having a Charles Johnson moment and will soon enough revert to type. it would be nice to think otherwise and that one of the sheep had finally looked up, but that’s not the way to bet, and Vegas was built on the house line, not long shots.

    love many, trust few and always cut the cards.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  15. Some ones been reading Heinlein again.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  16. Oh, really, Have Blue? TANSTAAFL is older than Luna Free State.

    Patterico, I wish you much luck with civility. As we have seen nationally, there is a flexible metric involved. Mind you, I would have no trouble at all with a “no-insult” thread set of rules.

    I have always thought on this blog as “your place,” Patterico, so your rules ought to be respected. And hopefully, they will.

    Simon Jester (9f3d33)

  17. redc1c4 – I’m willing to give the guy a chance. Pity others seem to already have made up their minds.

    daleyrocks (9b57b3)

  18. The thing that occurs to me, daley, is how many influential people on the Right started out on the Left. What changed their minds? And imagine how folks on the Left are encouraged to perceive the Right: angry, ignorant, selfish people. Isn’t that what the Left always says? So if we…aren’t…doesn’t that make a person wonder what else the Left is wrong about?

    Simon Jester (9f3d33)

  19. “And yet, you can’t deny that the guy is honest.”

    I dunno.

    Any time I hear someone describe themselves as “pro-choice”, “pro-life”, or “anti-war” that makes my b.s. detector start buzzing like crazy.

    Dave Surls (4eba4b)

  20. So redc1c4, do you not think that aphrael is honest? Leviticus?

    I’m more than willing to give Lee a shot.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  21. Lee has impressed me so far. He’s exactly the sort of person who should be more prominent on the left. Honest and principled. I can’t wait to see how this dialog works out over the coming weeks.

    bskb (3a53fe)

  22. It seems to me that there are different kinds of honesty.

    I don’t see how anyone can honestly claim to believe that the interstate commerce clause of the constitution authorises Congress to ban someone from growing wheat for his own consumption. The judges who ruled that way in Wickard v Filburn didn’t believe it, and no sane person has believed it since. Every single judge, lawyer, professor, politician, and journalist who has claimed that this is the law of the land is a liar. It wasn’t the law then, and since the constitution hasn’t been amended to make it the law, it still isn’t. An honest lawyer would advise a modern Mr Filburn that the law is on his side but the courts aren’t, and that if he takes it to court he will lose, even though he’s clearly in the right. And an honest politician or journalist will oppose any legislation that relies on this theory.

    I also don’t see how an honest person can claim that “Bush lied, people died”, or that there was a conspiracy in the Bush White House to “out” Valarie Plame, or that the Swift Boat Vets were lying, or that Tom DeLay did anything wrong, or that Bush went AWOL or stole two elections, or that Bush Sr arranged for the Iranians to hold the hostages, or any of the string of lies about Palin, etc. etc. I don’t know whether Mr Stranahan subscribes to any of these canards or the similar ones I didn’t list, but if he does then to that extent he is dishonest, since he ought to know that they are false.

    Then there’s another level of honesty; it would be odd to speak of an honest thief. Stealing is generally thought of as by definition dishonest, even if the thief genuinely believes that it is right and proper for them to help himself to other people’s property, and makes no effort to hide his depredations. So what is one to call someone who holds as a fundamental principle that everything everybody owns or earns is available for the government to confiscate at its will, that it all belongs to the nation to be distributed according to whatever principle the majority’s representatives decide? Does that not describe Mr Stranahan?

    And yet, there is another kind of honesty, one that one can find in all sorts of people, even thieves, murderers, communists and nazis, lawyers and politicians: the integrity to stick to the rules of the game, not to deliberately tell lies in defense of ones position or in attacking the opposition, to admit ones mistakes and the misdeeds and flaws of ones own side. The kind of honesty that impels one to “give the Devil his due” and not cheat him of it. The sort of honour and integrity that can exist between enemy spymasters or generals. That sort of honesty one can certainly find on the left, however rare it may be.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  23. Dude, I welcome anything resembling an honest lefty to this site. I have no problems with any lefty who is honest and can change his positions if he is led to see how they are wrong. And I’m always open to the notion of one actually proving ME wrong, though it rarely happens in my experience.

    So — more power to you.

    You may find THIS blogger: Neo-Neocon, of interest. She, too, has noted your recent activity and commended you for it. She’s a former lefty who has “turned to the dark side”…LOL.

    You may find her site, as well as her observations of how and why she changed, interesting and informative.

    IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8)

  24. What is Sekoff denying here???


    My best guess, anyway. Seems to be a major sport among libtards.

    Smock Puppet (c9dcd8)

  25. A warm welcome to our new guest blogger. I have been impressed with what I have seen and I am looking forward to seeing more.

    Nice move, Patterico. Rather exciting.

    Machinist (b6f7da)

  26. So, the line ‘let no deed go unpunished’ seems to be repeat in this case, Breitbart helped resurrect
    Arianna’s career, although she had the Huffington money, (from oil in Indonesia and Venezuela,)and
    she rewards the disgraced Marxist radical,instead.
    Then again, she’s laughing all the way to the bank. One is reminded how Armitage stabbed Libby
    in the back, in the Plame case, when the latter
    have come to him, in a libel suit, or how Ken
    Starr was savaged by Moldea, in a similar instance.

    Truth is, and Stranahan, should have realized this, when the left covered for Edwards, their fair haired boy, when they spread such obvious and vicious lies about Palin, when they gin up the torches against Israel. When they front such
    an obvious fraud like Obama.

    narciso (b545d5)

  27. So … like …uh … if we don’t watch (or mind) our P’s an Q’s with the softy furry creature (juss keeding) it’s [oh no! (that’s right, you guessed it …):

    Double Secret Probation!

    [elmo will now do the linky’s and read the thread (as usual) 🙂 ]

    Elmo (565707)

  28. Welcome Lee. Mickey Kaus is another honest lefty IMO. I look forward to your stuff.

    BT (74cbec)

  29. Welcome Lee,

    I’m looking forward to reading your material. What I’ve seen to this point has been great. Make sure your skin is thick at the beginning here. Some of our far-right readers will be hard to win over, and I’m sure we’ll be getting some Moby-action from the far-left trying to troll you into leaving as well.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  30. Welcome Lee.

    I do not agree with your stated beliefs in leftist positions, although what I’ve read of your writings so far has not reflected leftist (or rightist) positions. The writing (so far) appears to be open and observant.

    It should be interesting to see honest evaluations of events interpreted by a left POV and a right POV on the same blog.

    John Lynch (39a708)

  31. When I was growing up in the dark ages, the left and the right sparred, but not like they do today. The most bitter exchange I witnessed was when one of my teacher’s taunted another with “your man lost” after an election. The other teacher smiled and said they’d get them next time around. Then off they went together talking about something completely unreleated to politics. I miss those days so much. Welcome, Mr. Stranahan, may we return to the days of honest discussion about what is best for America.

    JackieV (d985ba)

  32. I agree with much of what Milhouse says, though I will also say that one can be honest only with what one knows about, which appears to have been Mr. Stranahan’s experience with a few specific items as our host has described.

    Intellectual honesty, which almost by necessity has to be accompanied by humility and a respect for others, is more important than any viewpoint, as even correct viewpoints can be held and clung to for the wrong reasons. Anytime one’s beliefs are held to because of faulty information or logic they can be no more solid than what they are based on.

    It will be interesting to follow Mr. Stranahan. Now that he is aware of some of the deception played by the left, will his eyes be opened to see it in other topics as well (assuming there are other topics where there has been deception).

    Although tangential to the immediate post, I’ll throw out one of the things I want to hear an intellectually honest opinion on:
    If one sees “pro-gay rights” as necessarily including same-sex marriage being seen as legally equivalent to heterosexual marriage,
    then why will we not find the following to be true-
    1) That those who believe that same-sex relationships are not equivalent to heterosexual relationships morally or by “natural law” will be ostracized and punished for voicing those opinions. (Example, the teenager in school who has always been friendly to individual gay students states in class he or she does not think same-sex relationships have the same moral standing as heterosexual relationships. Will this opinion be tolerated, will it be sneered at and the student harassed but no official action taken, or will action be taken against the student (and potentially the parents of a minor student) for harrassment, “hate speech”, or the like.
    2)That the definition of marriage will become subject to the whim of whatever a judge says it is.

    I think there is an understanding that morality and legality are not always synonymous, but when legality involves what one is allowed to say (short of a specific terroristic threat) the difference becomes blurred.

    Thank you and welcome.

    The other general thing I hope to see discussed with time are instances where the conservative mind asks, “Do they really believe that, or just saying it because it gets them where they want to be in a discussion/argument?

    MD in Philly (f0e1bd)

  33. Honest Liberal? A contradiction in terms.

    kjl291 (fe9d55)

  34. Delurking long enough to offer a warm welcome to Lee. I’ve been impressed with his articles over the past 2 weeks that both Patterico and Instapundit have linked. I look forward to reading him regularly here.

    Congrats Patterico for bringing him here, and Welcome Lee

    Kenny (76922b)

  35. I, too, am delurking to welcome Lee. I just finished (re)reading the posts at the links above, as well as the many comments there. I feel that I now understand Aaron’s excitement over his arrival here. I feel myself getting excited as well. I look forward to your posts, Lee.

    > Felipe

    Felipe (02954a)

  36. I’m pro-war rights.

    pinandpuller (938903)

  37. I’m pro-war rights.

    There are no rights in war. Winner. Loser. That’s what it’s all about. If you ain’t there to beat the snot our of your opposition until he concedes to your demands, you need to find another activity to be involved in, because you have no business involved in a war.

    Keep the above in context of The Art Of War — the best way to win a war is to do so in a manner which leads your opponent to not want to fight in the first place.

    Smock Puppet (c9dcd8)

  38. EHb4Od comment3, watch movies online free now download, [url=””]watch movies online free now download[/url], watch movies online free now download, %-]]],

    jonn1 (a856ef)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0707 secs.