Take a SEAT! Alexandra DeSanctis just EMBARRASSES Tom Nichols in heated debate about Bulwark's pro-choice #CPAC blunder

If ‘The Bulwark’ was trying to make an impression at this year’s CPAC they succeeded. Granted, it wasn’t what we’d call a great impression but people definitely noticed they were there.

Or at least people noticed the petty, snide, pro-choicer they chose to send and mock the movement was there.

Alexandra DeSanctis explained conservative’s anger at ‘The Bulwark’ over their stunt perhaps best of all:

Criticizing CPAC for not being conservative enough is one thing. I feel the same way. But if you’re an outlet that wants to “conserve conservatism,” maybe don’t assign your token liberal to cover conservative events just so they can have some fun mocking pro-life people.

— Alexandra DeSanctis (@xan_desanctis) March 2, 2019

Bingo.

This isn’t rocket science, folks.

Conservatives don’t fight Trumpism by mocking pro-life people.

— Alexandra DeSanctis (@xan_desanctis) March 2, 2019

Double bingo.

Is that a thing?

Anyway, for whatever reason, Tom Nichols decided he had to add in his two cents:

Has it occurred to you that "pro-life" for a lot of people is little more than top cover from criticism, just the way you're using it right now, and that maybe associating conservatism with Trumpism and turning CPAC into a carnival is why it's getting covered as comedy?

— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) March 2, 2019

Dude.

Wow.

Really?

Alexandra held her own (and then some).

A few thoughts. First, making this debate about whether I’m sincerely pro-life shows you have no arguments on the merits and no idea what you’re talking about. This isn’t about me or about Molly being liberal. And it’s not about hurt feelings. 1/ https://t.co/cdR7hYVwOp

— Alexandra DeSanctis (@xan_desanctis) March 3, 2019

I’m also not defending all of CPAC. I made a simple point, which was intentionally twisted by people like you, who want to avoid the actual issue: I don’t think it’s “conserving conservatism” to assign a liberal employee to mock pro-life ideas and positions. 2/

— Alexandra DeSanctis (@xan_desanctis) March 3, 2019

Your rebuttal seems to be that pro-lifers deserve to be mocked, because they’re at CPAC and “because Trump.” I have my problems with CPAC. But the idea that it’s okay to mock pro-life arguments because some advocates shared a stage with grifters isn’t conservative. 3/

— Alexandra DeSanctis (@xan_desanctis) March 3, 2019

Walk away, man.

This is *exactly* what I mean about that tactic: "Our arguments are so important that you must ignore the venue and the people we shared the stage with."
No. You have the right to associate as you please. I have the right to draw conclusions from who you associate with. https://t.co/EDoubfaN80

— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) March 3, 2019

FFS.

She had some support …

1. Guilt by association is irrational.

2. Funny that this wasn't even Molly's argument. Her's was "blah blah I hate anti-choicers."

3. See point 1. https://t.co/5qv4kk96Ib

— Mo Mo Bo Bo Bananafana Fo Fo (@molratty) March 3, 2019

Ok, so it’s not just us who keeps seeing Bulwark white knights arguing points nobody is making to avoid discussing the real issue.

Shew, thank goodness. For a minute there we thought maybe we were taking too many crazy pills.

Some “intellectual conservatives” believe the pro-life movement is beneath them. They think defending the unborn is a throwaway issue. It’s not. The right to life is the foundation of conservatism. Feel free to disagree, but don’t say you’re defending conservatism while you do it

— Alexandra DeSanctis (@xan_desanctis) March 3, 2019

And THAT’S that.

Hot damn, y’all.

‘Where the breadline ENDS’: AOC-inspired children’s books titles go VIRAL with hilarious tag #OcasioCortezChildrensBooks

‘Batta batta SA-WING batta!’ Sean Spicier’s tweets zinging AOC, Cohen, and fake hate crimes set the Left off and it’s PRICELESS

‘This is your slogan, my dude.’ RedSteeze calls The Bulwark OUT for sending pro-choice lib to ‘own the cons’ at CPAC