Over at Breitbart this evening, Tony Lee slammed CNN and John Avlon for a segment they ran last Friday on The Situation Room:
Wolf Blitzer allowed commentator and activist John Avlon to attack Sarah Palin without disclosing to the viewers that Avlon is a co-founded the anti-Tea Party group No Labels. Blitzer introduced Avlon as a “CNN Contributor and a senior political columnist for ‘Newsweek’ and ‘The Daily Beast'” without disclosing his No Labels ties.
Such an omission is noteworthy because Blitzer had Avlon on to discuss an article that slammed the woman whose endorsement carries the most weight among Tea Party voters: Palin. In a nutshell, the exchange symbolized CNN’s problem of hiding its biases behind a veneer of objectivity and allowing its guests to do the same…
Blitzer and CNN took Avlon’s report about SarahPAC’s two-month old financial disclosure report at face value, failing to supplement it with any journalism worthy of the high regard with which they hold themselves. Avlon delivered his talking points unchallenged, charging that Palin was supposedly hypocritical for not spending as much money on candidates as Avlon would have liked her to while she railed against consultants.
Blitzer actually thanked Avlon for the hit piece, noting that he did “some reporting for us.”
Neither noted that PACs have contribution limits, nor that Palin was not hypocritical because her advisers do not tell candidates to make unnecessary commercials because they get a cut from them, nor that Avlon falsely wrote that Palin’s PAC raised more money in 2011 than it did in 2012.
Please go here to read the entire thing.
Update: Tony Lee posted another piece over at Breitbart, ripping Avlon’s hit piece to shreds:
John Avlon, the co-founder of the anti-Tea Party No Labels group, wrote a bizarre attack piece on Sarah Palin’s lean political action committee last week after completely misconstruing what Palin said at the Conservative Political Action Conference. At CPAC, the former Alaska governor and Tea Party leader denounced the permanent political class and urged Republicans to “furlough” the consultants.
Palin railed against consultants and those who need them for stories–like Avlon, who, along with those like Mark McKinnon, feigns objectivity while pushing the “No Labels” agenda that is mutually exclusive with that of conservatives and Tea Partiers. Those like Avlon often bash influential Tea Party conservatives like Palin to pay tribute to their liberal mainstream media masters, who then reward them with dutiful pats on the head and television appearances for him to peddle his “centrist” books the country does not care about, will not read, and certainly has no intention of buying…
Palin was criticizing consultants associated with establishment groups like American Crossroads, which spent over $100 million dollars and got barely over a 1% return on their investment while supporting no winning candidates in 2012. She was criticizing consultants who do not care about electing conservatives or even winning elections so long as they just get paid.
Contrast that with Palin.
Every new Republican senator elected to the Senate in the 2012 election cycle was endorsed by Palin. Nobody else can say the same. Her PAC gets results, and SarahPAC donors are not the rubes Avlon stereotypically portrays them to be, and they get that.
At CPAC, Palin was railing against the types of advisers who would charge a candidate per speech, and promptly advise the candidate to make as many speeches as possible. She was lambasting advisers who make commissions off television commercials and then insist that the only “way to win” is to make as many commercials as possible so they can, most importantly, line their pockets. Palin was blasting consultants who can be bought off from working for other candidates with a six-figure check. The types who beg to work for a candidate and then rail against that candidate when they are rejected without, of course, disclosing their previous overtures. The types who dictate campaign strategy not based on what is good for the candidate but what is good for their bottom line (more television ads!).
Palin was criticizing politicians and party leaders who threaten to pull support for candidates if those candidates do not hire their friends. She was ripping the types of consultants who start bipartisan rackets and have companies with various shades of purple in their names and insist they are “above the fray” or without labels and partisanship, which often means they have no cores or convictions except self-promoting themselves and doing whatever is the most politically expedient that will get them invited to Aspen Ideas events and insufferable dinner parties populated by people who mistake activity for achievement, process for substance, and kabuki “bipartisanship” for leadership.
Palin’s staff is different.
This is just a small sample. It’s a great piece, filled with information. Go here to read the whole article for yourself.