As Twitchy reported Friday, The Bulwark, the site that rose out of the ashes of the #NeverTrump Weekly Standard and uses as its slogan “conserving conservatism,” decided to send liberal writer Molly Jong-Fast as its correspondent to CPAC, and people like Stephen Miller were stumped at how it was conserving conservatism to send someone to write about “extremely scary” pro-life panels with “very very very very anti-choice” hosts.
A day later, Bulwark editor-in-chief Charlie Sykes is still trying to explain the reasoning in sending not just a #NeverTrump conservative but an avowed progressive to cover CPAC.
To summarize:
Folks who defend White nationalists.. check
Grifters .. check#
Vdare contributors….check
Folks who endorsed Paul Nehlen.. check
Folks who backed Roy Moore… check
Seb Gorka… check
Pro choice tweeter.. OMG YOUHAVE BETRAYED CONSERVATIVISM— Charlie Sykes (@SykesCharlie) March 2, 2019
??????????
— Molly Jong-Fast (@MollyJongFast) March 2, 2019
— CPAC, wouldn't wanna BPAC (@jtLOL) March 2, 2019
You're being disingenuous. It's not that she's pro choice, it's that she was mocking pro lifers for their beliefs.
— ?The President of the Oskar Werner fan club? (@pipandbaby) March 2, 2019
And no one is required to agree with her…. why not just answer her? Mock her back? Rather than insisting she not be published?
— Charlie Sykes (@SykesCharlie) March 2, 2019
Why not just send a “real” conservative if your readership is “real” conservatives? Why not let a liberal outlet hire her to cover CPAC?
I don't believe you betrayed anyone.
I do think such reporting does undermine that you are a conservative outlet… Instead of just another middle of the road outlet.
— Pradheep J. Shanker, M.D., M.S. (@Neoavatara) March 2, 2019
Recommended
kind of a straw man. I've been watching the criticism of you guys and most of it is from people who despise what you've written above.
— Politically Homeless (@keder) March 2, 2019
But . . . Many who have been critical of the Twitter coverage of this list of yours have not been excusing any of those other elements you offer, and have regularly been critical of those as well. People like @xan_desanctis and @redsteeze in particular.
— Rook Ridge (@RookRidge) March 2, 2019
It’s reminiscent of when Newsweek wrote of how conservatives pounced on that video of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dancing and then cited exactly zero examples or when “real” conservative Ana Navarro tweeted about all the conservatives pouncing on Malia Obama over that photo of her drinking wine.
I was under the impression that Conservatives had varied opinions and perspectives. Looking at this thread suggests they are supposed to have signed loyalty contracts. I suspect that the people here don’t speak for ALL Conservatives.
— Kelly Woodford (@kellywoodford) March 2, 2019
If you think everyone who is dragging you for your poor editorial decision checks all these boxes it’s clear you have no ability to make rational judgments.
— Courtney Shadegg (@CShadegg) March 2, 2019
This is a false dichotomy and you know it.
What's extra funny is that this person you're sticking up for is a scorpion, and it's still going to come as a surprise when she stings you.
— Spratface (@Spratlinger) March 2, 2019
What's interesting, Charlie, is that out of all the things you listed, the only thing about CPAC conservatives have been defending is the pro-life panel that your pro-choice writer decided to mock–because it's unambiguously conservative. Curious, don't you think?
— Michael Haugen (@HaugenATX) March 2, 2019
Very defensive of you to lash out with unproven labels of your critics. Meanwhile your publication sent people to take shots at the pro-life movement at a time Democrats are legalizing the killing of babies when they are born
— Alexandria Polorcasio-Vortex (Scottergate ?) (@Scottergate) March 2, 2019
Believe whatever you want but just don't say you're defending conservative ideals while mocking pro-lifers. It's a concept most 8 year olds would get. Maybe go ask one to explain it to you.
— Kojak (@BigKojak56) March 2, 2019
We didn’t endorse governor “Coonman”
— Dr. Richard Harambe (@Richard_Harambe) March 2, 2019
Who did?
— Moves Product (@tomabella) March 2, 2019
Kristol donated to the Northam campaign pic.twitter.com/0T6cJSzBy0
— Dr. Richard Harambe (@Richard_Harambe) March 2, 2019
✅ Alienating potential allies to Own the Trumpists.
FFS Charlie. You and Tom the Expert are bombing the village to save it, and many of your critics today are not defending Trumpism but rather questioning your clumsy, self-defeating tactics.
— Haiku Jonah (@HaikuJonah) March 2, 2019
Every single time I've seen you on MSNBC you are agreeing with the postion of the hosts (typically to the left). I get being against Trump, but you've totally copped out on your supoised values, for some air time. Just own it, and stop being silly.
— Finchy (@Finchy0330) March 2, 2019
It should be possible to tweet about events with respect and without making fun of serious philosophical positions or taunting the people who hold them. Or we understand the kind of publication you are running and will move on,
— (((JenniferSpreng))) (@jennifer_spreng) March 2, 2019
Don’t eat the Pla-Doh, Charles.
— ? Bryan O'Nolan ? (@BryanONolan) March 2, 2019
Charlie, slam this "conservatism" all you want, but how about going after the other (infanti)side, too? I'm sure you guys will tab @BriannaWu over @tedcruz in 8 years. That's why I consider @BulwarkOnline a joke.
— ds (@nyetjgoldblum) March 2, 2019
It's great to criticize how CPAC has become a joke.
What's not so great is sending an obnoxious leftist there to mock the pro-life movement.
I like you Charlie, I really do, but this was a bad decision on your part.
I don't know why you're surprised by the negative reaction.— George Wept (@GeorgeWept) March 2, 2019
Lol you are being so dishonest and disingenuous here and you know it. Just give it up man.
— Storm Kollak ™ (@realStormKollak) March 2, 2019
Leave it up to @BulwarkOnline to argue that liberalism, and the mocking of one of the pillars of rightism (defense of the unborn), only strengthens conservatism.
My eyes have literally rolled out of my head.
— Ian McKelvey (@ian_mckelvey) March 2, 2019
Yeah, literally no one has argued that.
— Charlie Sykes (@SykesCharlie) March 2, 2019
You claim to want to advance the conservative movement, while simultaneously giving a voice to a leftist who mocked the pro-life cause. There’s not much more than can be said.
— Ian McKelvey (@ian_mckelvey) March 2, 2019
Once we all stand together with Democrats and defend the killing of tiny infant babies only then can we start to conserve conservatism. Amirite?
— Daniel (@ddwalk34) March 2, 2019
In order to conserve conservatism, conservatives must abandon every conservative principle they've ever had for the duration of the Trump presidency.
This is nuclear level absurdity.— Daniel (@ddwalk34) March 2, 2019
If I need to hear that I am morally bankrupt for not hating Trump enough or not wanting to see the Presidency implode, I’ll read Salon. I didn’t even wish for that under Obama. And yesterday was some A level trolling for people concerned about “trollery”.
— Stacey (@ScotsFyre) March 2, 2019
Molly mocked women who did. You don’t get it. She represents your garbage brand now. You wanted to troll, you hired a troll, and now everyone knows what a garbage group you are.
— Ellison (@PatedBears) March 2, 2019
I'm truly enjoying watching your brand go down in flames. Hated by cons for sending a lib to mock cons, hated by libs for calling yourselves cons. Damn dude, that's a new level of self destruction.
— NotAnAverageWhiteBand (@TheBigBaum) March 2, 2019
Here’s a video of their business model: pic.twitter.com/fxqYkb9fig
— Jussie Smollet’s Meth Dealer (@GameOnJD) March 2, 2019
Related:
‘This is your slogan, my dude.’ RedSteeze calls The Bulwark OUT for sending pro-choice lib to ‘own the cons’ at CPAC https://t.co/1uZmbVDF0T
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) March 1, 2019
Join the conversation as a VIP Member