Liar, Liers

... on top of a telephone wire Unplugged I'm surely not the only person who's noticed the "coming out" of publications that were generally reliably conservative that now,  in the matter of Trump, are dancing with the New York Times.  One is the Washington Examiner. Example: Carney: The death of Republican outrage? It's well and good to point out the inconsistency of liberals who defended Bill Clinton in the 1990s and are attacking Donald Trump now. But sometimes inconsistency means moving from error to correct opinion. The Clinton-defenders-turned-Trump-attackers might be partisan hacks, and they might be insincere in their concern for women, but this time around they are correct. The important thing is, we conservatives were right back then. And we should have the same standards today. THEIR ERRORS DO NOT MITIGATE TRUMP'S SINS This is freaking bizarre.  The below mentioned WaPost's "no, we are not making this endorsement simply because Ms Clinton's chief opponent is dreadful" reasoning is typical. No argument advanced that delves into Trump's inadequacy as a leader of men, failed business acumen, lack of success, or any other reasonable measure executive ability.  Instead we get feigned outrage over locker room "grab'em by the pussy" talk—that every man in the world has engaged in—and used as a disqualifier.  In the next breath we are told that Hillary history isn't worthy of discussion. Why? Ask.