Bill Kristol's so proud of Molly-Jong Fast 'for triggering so many snowflakes on the right' with her mockery of pro-lifers at CPAC

As Twitchy told you on Friday, the Bulwark affirmed their commitment to “conserving conservatism” by sending über-prog pro-abort Molly Jong-Fast to CPAC to cover “extremely scary” pro-lifers.

Bulwark co-founder Bill Kristol, for one, couldn’t be prouder of Jong-Fast’s contributions to the conservative cause:

Thanks also to freelancers who've contributed such lively copy, from @kim_wehle to @UrbanAchievr to @CathyYoung63 to many more. And of course to @MollyJongFast for triggering so many snowflakes on the right with her mordant (and yes–gasp!–heterodox) dispatches from #CPAC2019.

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) March 2, 2019

Molly Jong-Fast’s dispatches weren’t “heterodox.” They were actively hostile to a core tenet of conservatism: the sanctity of life.

This is a bad tweet.

— George Wept (@GeorgeWept) March 3, 2019

You’re not helping Bill

— abcde (@justhackett) March 2, 2019

Disgraceful. What have you become?

— CG's Geometry PitchBot (@cg_shadow) March 2, 2019

Here you are wrong, @BillKristol . Mocking conservatism id a mistake. Cpac can be mocked for many things, its become trump cultism, but mockery of conservatism is not okay. Molly wrote like a leftist.

— Vlad Modoran (@vlad_modoran) March 2, 2019

Bulwark sent a pro-choice representative to CPAC to mock pro-lifers. Is this what you want to turn the GOP into? I know you want to create some sort of alternative Republican Party but I didn’t realize being the pro-choice GOP was part of your goal.

— Kim Hubbard (@kimhub) March 2, 2019

She wasn't mocking delivery of message or the speakers – she was mocking the pro-life message.

I thought being pro-life was a conservative position, so I'm not sure what is your target audience here.

— Lex Costa (@BRChronicler) March 2, 2019

I don't like Trump. I don't like Trumpkins. I'm the target audience for something like The Bulwark. And I do not absolve them of responsibility for the work they publish or the public statements of the writers they send to cover events. Own it. #ConservingConservatism

— CPAC, wouldn't wanna BPAC (@jtLOL) March 4, 2019

If @TheBulwark wants to provide an alternative, why are they acting just like the people they oppose?

— CPAC, wouldn't wanna BPAC (@jtLOL) March 4, 2019

Because they’re everything they claim to be against.

The argument "that the Bulwark should only publish the views of people who agree with our institutional positions…assumes a view of public life that is pathetically crippled." "Did you ever get any value from reading Christopher Hitchens?…I did."https://t.co/BlJ7TWJXG7

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) March 4, 2019

Oh, bullsh*t. Molly Jong-Fast is no Christopher Hitchens, Bill. And the Bulwark is no conservative torchbearer.

Come on, man pic.twitter.com/fdavz6Xqud

— John Ekdahl (@JohnEkdahl) March 4, 2019

Pathetic.

Sorry guys… We publish several different views, some of which are liberal DEAL WITH IT SNOWFLAKES isn't what your website says it is.

"Conservatism Conserved" and "Rational principled fact based conservative commentary." is.

You created this mess. No one else.

— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) March 4, 2019

I've was a NeverTrump guy in the primaries and did not vote for him in the general election accordingly. But these antics, which cross the line into open promotion of leftist spleen for no real reason, have so alienated and disgusted me that that's not true for 2020. Nice work!

— Sage McLaughlin (@sagaciousmick) March 2, 2019

***

Bulwark editor still trying to convince us having Molly Jong-Fast cover CPAC was conserving conservatism