'There is No Such Thing as Partial Credibility'

Stacy McCain links to the story at the Daily Caller that “Gawker Thinks They Found Lena Dunham’s Alleged Rapist… And He’s A Democrat” and responds:

Whether or not [man named by Dunham in her book proposal] is a rapist, he is evidently a liberal Democrat, not a conservative Republican, so if Gawker’s story is correct, this has only further damaged Dunham’s credibility, exposing her as having engaged in a deliberate partisan smear.

There is no such thing as partial credibility. Once a source has proven that they are willing to lie — deliberately and consciously — they lose all credibility, and Dunham has proven herself a liar.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

If Lena Dunham says [man named by Dunham] is a rapist? This means [man named by Dunham] is probably a nice guy, even if he is a liberal Democrat.

Heh. As I’ve said before, starting with the New York Times’ “Fake But Accurate” headline, it’s been fascinating to watch the left, and leftwing journalists in particular discard objective truth as their goal — and openly admit that they’re pretty darn cool with lying when it suits their political needs. (QED: Vox, Jonathan Gruber, and of course, Barack Obama.)

But that doesn’t mean the rest of us, who don’t view politics as our religion, have to hold such low standards.

Update: “What looks like inexplicably staggering hypocrisy from the conservative perspective is actually remarkably consistent from the liberal perspective,” Jonah Goldberg writes, as he explores “A Year of Liberal Double Standards.”