This Might Explain The Unhinged, Anti-Obama Rage In The Wash. Times

Have you ever wondered why so much unhinged, anti-Obama vitriol finds its way onto The Washington Times' opinion pages?

Just read today's column by the Times' editorial page editor, Brett Decker, and you'll have your answer.

Decker argues that conspiracy theories about Obama exist because of the administration's "[e]xcessive fear of scrutiny" which “breeds secrecy” and “can inspire conspiracy theories.” While Decker doesn't explicitly endorse any particular Obama conspiracy theory, he works hard to push an “Obama might not be one of us” angle.

And it's this view - that Obama is hiding something -- that permeates the Times' opinion pages.

Discussing birther conspiracy theories, Decker writes that “the president, his own staff and backers are the rainmakers who have stirred the recent storm,” citing comments by Chris Matthews and Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie that keep “bringing the issues to the fore and thus make the scandals more bipartisan and mainstream.”

Of course, this theory was completely discredited years ago, so why continue to bring it up? Because Decker can use it to ask questions that suggest Obama isn't really who he says he is. Decker asks: “Why does everything about this guy have to be so weird? Why can't Barack be a little more normal?”

Translation: What is “this guy” hiding?

Perhaps most revealing, we learn a little about what informs Decker's view of Obama, as he promotes WorldNetDaily columnist Jack Cashill's latest book. Decker writes that Cashill's “purpose is to provide an expose on a politician who has gone to great lengths to carefully manufacture a narrative for his whole life that is appealing for public consumption.” Decker also says that Cashill “pulls back the velvet curtain to give a glimpse backstage.”

As Media Matters has noted, Cashill is an Obama conspiracy theorist connoisseur. He has promoted the wild theory that Bill Ayers actually wrote Obama's book Dreams From My Father. More recently, Cashill unveiled his latest conspiracy theory: Barack Obama Sr. isn't really the father of President Obama.

After quoting Cashill, Decker claims that "[t]he image of Mr. Obama is such an artificial construct that it's necessary to deconstruct some of the artifice. That work is not character assassination."

But how are Cashill's out-there theories somehow Obama's fault - the result of some “artificial construct” ? Decker doesn't explain. And it doesn't matter: He gets to plug an anti-Obama conspiracy theorist's book.

This is the kind of swill that the editorial page editor of The Washington Times embraces, which explains how this kind of unhinged, vitriolic, anti-Obama commentary finds a home in its opinion pages: