If you think this is awful, you should read the comments below the fold.

A number of you have emailed me a link to the latest Jack Cashill article, and although I understand why, I'm not any better equipped to deal with his unsubtle descent into pure lunacy than you folks are. What can you do with an article that argues:

1. No one would ever want to go to Kenya, so
2. Obama's resemblance to his maternal grandfather, Stanley Dunham, is suspicious; therefore
3. Stanley Dunham is his real father, but because Obama must have one black parent,
4. That means his father must have been Stanley Dunham's friend, the black communist Frank Marshall Davis;
5. Or, because these friends drank at a black bar near a red-light district, Obama must be the child of Dunham and a black prostitute, because
6. White women with black children were socially acceptable, whereas white men with black children were not, and
7. Barack Obama Sr. was enlisted because "African" is a more respected cultural identity than "Negro," and because, as everyone knows,
8. No one named "Darnell Johnson" would ever be elected President; moreover,
9. Stanley Dunham sung the Obama Sr.'s praises Obama, which would have been odd in "the racially charged 1960s," especially when you consider
10. That a 69-year-old woman said a momentous something happened in 1961, when in fact it had to have been in 1962 that
11. This 69-year-old woman saw Ann Dunham nursing baby Obama, which she could not have been, because
12. Obama must have been born to Dunham in February or March of 1961, on account of the fact that pregnant women can't attend college,
13. But if they could, they would have learned that scientists use the phrase "inference to the best explanation," which leads Cashill to infer that
14. "Obama was likely born in Hawaii but that Ann Dunham did not give birth to Barack Obama Sr.'s child on August 4, 1961," and what proves the legitimacy of this inference is that
15. A celebrity biographer got confused when 69-year-old women mistook something that happened 49 years ago for something that happened 50, meaning
16. The mainstream media ought to be paying attention to this, but because it is not, Cashill has no choice but to label himself a "birther."

Putting aside for a second that the majority of these alternative parentage theories would utterly invalidate the birther's central claim that Obama is ineligible to serve (white Washingtonians and black Hawaiian prostitutes being natural born citizens and all); and putting aside all the racist assumptions (white women love black men, but no white man would ever want to have sex with a black woman, the history of slavery in American notwithstanding); and putting aside the blatant contradictions (Dunham named his child "Barack Obama" so no one would think he's black); and putting aside all the other nonsense in this article, you are left with nothing.

Because once you put aside everything that sensible, rational people rightly put aside, there's nothing there. Every time he posts something, I wonder what whether this new bit of lunacy will be what's required for those conservatives (for example) who took Cashill seriously to distance themselves from him. (Then again, everyone says I have too much faith in people who warrant none.)

Even his commenters consider Cashill's argument a blank slate onto which they can draw all manner of paranoid stupidity:

• I believe Obama was born to "somebody" in Hawaii at sometime during 1961.
• I was very convinced that Malcolm X was his father, for many reasons, least of which is the STRIKING facial resemblance between the two—almost like twins separated at birth. Further, Barack Sr had more than a passing acquaintance with Malcolm, and Malcolm's Muslim connections dovetails well with the support given to Obama from known Muslim radicals.
• I am still VERY interested in his college records/SAT scores, first to disprove his "genius" (as I am convinced they will do so) and to possibly prove that he entered as a foreign student.
• I am wondering what George Soros holds over the Heads of every Congressman, Congresswoman, Journalists, White House Residence, Secret Service, FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS, US. Military, Judicial Watch, The Supreme Court and any others that might let something accidentally slip out about about our dear president that proves he is not qualified.
• As a hand picked, media created, media protected marionette for Soros and the dark Marxists fascists , O's strings are just beginning to become visible to those who care to look. The dozens of meticulously scrubbed records of college admissions, college life, State Department passport history, and the semi- hidden use of an Indonesian passport in traveling to Pakistan, the complete paucity of the reasonable and logical paper trails that accompanies any American citizen, all stink with the fingerprints of the Pervoye Glavnoye Upravleniye (PGU), the First Chief Directorate of the KGB.
• Truth is always stranger than fiction, but the writing has been on the wall ever since Nikita Kruschev banged his shoe on the table in the UN in 1962 in front of Adlai Stevenson and told him something to the effect that the Communist world would bury the USA via internal infiltration and subversive sedition. Joe McCarthy was right, and we've seen the master plan unfold in front of us incrementally since he blew the whistle in the late 50's; why is it any surprise that the culmination of their plan, a Commie Trojan Horse mole elected as POTUS, has come to fruition?
• The scrubbing of ALL of Obama's records is akin to the handiwork of KGB operatives. The point being, the US is still infiltrated by Russian spooks of the past, burrowed deep within the American Communist Party. The fact that the Dems and others are willing to cover Obama's back most likely is separate and apart from the real conspiracy—the Russian connection to his ascendancy out of nowhere. They are simply thrilled with his radical ideology and will lend him cover. Surely Soros knows all about the Russian connection, and may very well be a part of it, as he is a main player in America's downward spiral.
• A lot of white communists just gave their teenage daughters over to black communists for sex, at that time. It was their sick, twisted idea of appeasing the black race and bringing more black men into communism. The more disturbing part of Obama's background is that there is a good chance he is a product of unwanted, undesired sex, possibly rape. His mother was 17 at the time. In some states that would be statutory rape. I wouldn't at all be surprised if Frank Marshall Davis or some other black communist forced himself on her, with her parents' blessing.

From Obama being born to "somebody" at "sometime," to him being the product of a communist interracial rape-plot supported by George Soros and the KGB in a little over seven hours.   Some days, I weep for the future.

Comments

[Rich Puchalsky]

I'm deeply skeptical about the kind of engagement with "politics" that writing about Cashill represents. In short form:

1. Taking this stuff seriously only makes you stupider, because there's nothing there;
2. This stuff is what the GOP is, in microcosm;
3. There is no way to engage with any kind of contemporary conservative thought that is worthwhile. They're all Cashill.

They can't be reasoned with, only defeated.

[Ahistoricality]

Every now and then, just to make sure you're being honest, I click through. Then I remember why I usually don't. I honestly don't have the strength to click on the comments, but just in case anyone's wondering, this is a faithful rendering of the content of the .... writing in question. Except for point 8, which is, as near as I can tell, an impertinent but reasonable inference.

For reasons passing understanding, I'm reminded of the Bush TANG-AWOL memos.

[SEK]

They can't be reasoned with, only defeated.

Agreed; however, the last time Democrats were in power, innuendo of this sort snowballed into "If he might've ordered a hit on Vince Foster, of course he'd get a hummer from an intern." I'm not saying it's important, or that tracking and mocking it makes me any smarter, but the impact of these mini-narratives on those people who, momentarily, see the Republican for who and what they are and vote for a Democrat, can't be emphasized enough. I'm talking about the kind of walking back my Mississippi in-laws are currently doing---they reluctantly voted for Obama, but the cumulative effect of all these baseless accusations is actually substantial.

Every now and then, just to make sure you're being honest, I click through.

I'm just glad this reflects poorly on their insanity and not my character.

[Ahistoricality]

I'm just glad this reflects poorly on their insanity and not my character.

It probably reflects more poorly on myself, that after all these years I still question people whose veracity has been demonstrated repeatedly and consistently. But it's who I am at this point in my life, I suppose: a natural cynic and skeptic.

It's just my inner nerd, the footnote-checking, bibliography-reading graduate student who never entirely fades away.

[Rich Puchalsky]

"I'm talking about the kind of walking back my Mississippi in-laws are currently doing---they reluctantly voted for Obama, but the cumulative effect of all these baseless accusations is actually substantial."

Is engaging with them going to make their effect any less substantial? No, of course not. Or rather, Obama could conceivably engage with them, but Obama is a failure and he's not going to engage with anything. (More on this at my blog; I'm not going into detail here.)

This kind of racism is what the GOP is built on. Of course some people will always be called back by it. They will do that whether or not people take notice of it on blogs.

[Karl Steel]

Rich, what would working for the defeat of the racist paranoid Right look like, I mean, for a blogger and teacher? You disapprove of this and other posts like this; what would you have in its place? Or is this writing just a waste of time that could be used, say, staffing phone banks, door knocking, etc.?

[Rich Puchalsky]

It's a waste of time that could be used to write smarter posts. I'm not just talking about fish-in-a-barrel syndrome. What I mean is that a whole lot of effort has gone into documenting how Cashill is a nutcase. OK, he is. But then where does it go? Is there some political conclusion? No. _Nixonland_ has already been written; the syndrome that produces Cashill and a million like him is familiar to all of us. Is taking down Cashill an exercise in style, or in observation of the passing scene a la many of Scott's literary journalism models? No, not really. There has to be something there to write about before you can write well. People like Cashill combine racist tripe with powerlessness. That's already been written, and needs a much harsher writer than Scott is if it's going to be done again with anything added.

When Scott asks whether other conservatives who took Cashill seriously will stop taking him seriously, who does he point to? Protein Wisdom. In other words, yet another Cashill. No one except Scott even took him seriously in the first place. Is there going to be a point at which this reaches anyone with actual political influence? Scott has done that before, actually. For instance, KC Johnson's book / Web site had some slight influence because he used his academic status to support it, and was a worthy object of criticism by another academic.

Mockery of right-wing blogging feebs is something that got very popular during the Bush years. Fine, during that time there really wasn't much else to do. But it's really a waste to do it now., a waste not in the primitive sense of "you could be knocking on doors" -- ick, by the way -- but in the sense that people are capable of writing better than that, and they won't as long as they're doing this.

[tomemos]

I've agreed with Rich's "don't engage the crazies" comments before, but I disagree here. I believe in not engaging crazies who are either genuinely crazy, or else trolls (and those aren't exclusive)—that is, those who are actively looking to shock and outrage decent people. They should be ignored, not rewarded with shock and outrage. But Cashill is going to be Cashill regardless of what Scott posts on him. There's not any harm in doing it.

Rich might respond, "But what's the *good* in doing it?" To which I'd say, these posts are funny. Is politics never allowed to be entertaining? Is mockery always unworthy? Lighten up.

[Rich Puchalsky]

Is it still funny, 500 times later? Or is it the equivalent of "take my wife -- please"?

But I'd also make the case that it does active harm. If you gaze into the void of thought, the void gazes also into you. It not only affects style, it starts to affect what you think is worth caring about in the first place. Insensibly, you start to refer to e.g. Protein Wisdom as if anyone should care, just because they aren't quite as nutty (arguably) as Cashill. You start to think that just because people are affected by racist rumors, there is something about them that is worth addressing seriously.

[tomemos]

"Insensibly, you start to refer to e.g. Protein Wisdom as if anyone should care, just because they aren't quite as nutty (arguably) as Cashill."

Well, I've never done that. Your move.

(I know you're referring to Scott here, but come on, what's the correlation? Do you think the guys at Sadly No! spend much time referring to Protein Wisdom as if anyone should care?)

"You start to think that just because people are affected by racist rumors, there is something about them that is worth addressing seriously."

Is that what Scott is doing here? Of course not.

[Rich Puchalsky]

Is this really a Sadly, No piece? No, it isn't. I'm a bit puzzled by your claim that this should be read as funny-ha-ha. Is it funny that racists are driveling over Obama? Wouldn't a Ku Klux Klan site be the ultimate laugh riot, then?

People don't go to a Ku Klux Klan site and quote 16 points of paranoid racist drivel and summarize 8 comments because, well, that's what the KKK does. You don't argue with them, you don't be surprised when they descend into lunacy. You just oppose them. The whole reason that mocking this kind of thing is supposed to be inherently funny, other than any notable witticism on display -- which, sorry, Scott, but I don't see it -- is the implied contrast between "this is supposed to be a respectable person" and "this is the lunatic stuff that they're saying." But they aren't a respectable person. No one should expect them to be.

[SEK]

When Scott asks whether other conservatives who took Cashill seriously will stop taking him seriously, who does he point to? Protein Wisdom.

Yes, but that's only to get Jeff's goat, as he hates it when I link to him. As for who takes Cashill seriously, he writes for WorldNetDaily, which means that he 1) has a large audience and 2) it's an audience that overlaps with a couple hundred of my Facebook friends and/or people who read the blog because they want to save my soul and think I'm a rational person (and just can't imagine why I haven't logicked my way to Jesus yet). I've found, in my admittedly limited experience, that this sort of writing has a filter-up effect, so much so that when I attend church with my in-laws, the folks there have read what I've written and seriously considered it. They might not agree, but they're at least open to a more critical/rational/sane discourse. Moreover, as I rank more highly in the Google search for some of Cashill's pieces than he does, people looking for his nonsense might find a careful debunking of it instead.

Plus, as tomemos notes, I do have fun writing these. Yes, I may be exasperated, but I also enjoy writing exasperatedly, as it's tonally so foreign to what I normally write.

For instance, KC Johnson's book / Web site had some slight influence because he used his academic status to support it, and was a worthy object of criticism by another academic.

Those were different times, before the Right had been whipped back to the insanity of the Clinton years.

[Martin Wisse]

I would also argue, just because Nixonland has been written, this sort of exercise is worthless. Books fall out of print, lessons are forgotten and people get surprised when the insanity and inanity of the wingnut right resurfaces again. All the stuff SEK quoted here is only marginally different from Bircher propaganda of the sixties, but the lunacy of the Clinton and then the Bush years still came as a surprise to a lot of people, some of which old enough to know better.

[David R. Block]

Sigh.

This is an unintended equal (maybe not, that kind of depends on where you stand or sit) "conspiracy" roughly equivalent to "Trigg troofer" rhetoric. With the exception of "excitable Andrew 'Andy' Sullivan" who appears to have really gone nuts over it.

I believe that nuts are evenly distributed.

[Sid the Anarchist Lurker]

Sigh. Barf.

No, the nuts are not evenly distributed. Very few people of and on the farthest Left believed or spoke of "Trigg troofer," nor did one single major media outlet pitch that libel. It was, by any measure, a non-story. Yet right-wing tardation has damn near over taken the entire of the Republican party. You're failures, almost entirely White failures. Your veins lead to your heart and what's coursing through your veins into and at the heart of right-wing rhetoric nowadays is the lowest rung of white trash America, namely, racism and failure and the inability to recognize said.

America will only move forward as a country upon unshackling itself from the delirious White trash Jesus bleaters who suck the hind tit at its underbelly.

Continue tar and feathering this Cashill flake, SEK. For America!

[Ahistoricality]

I believe that nuts are evenly distributed.

No.

All the cashews and almonds get eaten first, and you get stuck with the peanuts at the bottom.

Or, if you're baking, some of the cookies will be almost nut-free; others will have lots of nuts, but no chocolate chips.

Seriously, though, if I had to generalize I'd say that paranoia and nuttiness on the right tends to be outwardly directed and more public, whereas nuttiness on the left tends to be more intra-personal, self-developmental flakiness.