Fuming

In "The Unholy Alliance Against the Filibuster" the LATimes has found a Christian pawn they can use to attack the Christians. How lucky for them. And he even has a pulitzer, for "God: A Biography."

The op/ed's author is Jack Miles, who is also a former member of the ultraliberal LAT editorial board, but that's not disclosed in his brief bio, which is an act of journalistic sleight of hand if ever I saw one. But that's to be expected, as are the unsubstantiated rhetoric and outright lies that pepper Miles' piece:

Today, the United States faces an unprecedented Bush administration effort to use religion to bring about one-party rule in the United States ...

What hyperbole! Everyone in the GOP recognizes political ascendency and descendency. Their strength is not permanent, as Speaker Frist made clear on Justice Sunday, when he said he understood that the rules change could be used by Dems when they are once again in the majority, and that's fine and right because it's a good change.

Once filibusters against judicial nominees can be eliminated, they can be easily eliminated for any other matter before the Senate.

Easily? Please explain that! To propose such a thing would be ruinous to a party because the legislative filibuster is truly established, not a rules johnny-come-lately. In fact, let's bring back the true Mr.-Smith-Goes-to-Washington / Mr.-Byrd-Rants-Against-Integration legislative filibusters of old!

Tom DeLay, the ultraconservative Republican leader of the House of Representatives ...

Why are conservatives always ultraconservative and liberals always mainstream?

Last January, Fritz Stern — a German emigre historian who witnessed the rise of Nazism — was asked whether the United States could ever become an authoritarian state.

The only reason for this passage is so Miles can rub up pretty close to that cozy and fulfilled feeling Libs get from calling Republicans Nazis. As much as he hates Republicans, though, Miles hates Catholics more. And he hates most of all Catholics and Republicans working together:

And the German pope? In what mood does he witness the rising threat to democracy within the U.S.? During the presidential election, each candidate had an issue that he could exploit to claim Pope John Paul II as an ally. Kerry had Iraq, which the pope opposed; Bush had abortion. But Ratzinger would have nothing of such evenhandedness. "Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia," the future pope wrote to the U.S. bishops. "There may be legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not, however, with regard to abortion and euthanasia."

What his letter seemed to suggest was that if Bush gave Rome what it wanted on the abortion issue and the (now strategically inflamed) euthanasia issue [What?! Did Republicans bring up Terri Schiavo? No, Dem Libs did, aggressively pushing her case to establish new standards for euthanasia!], Rome would do its best to give Bush what he wanted regarding the death penalty and, above all, war. The question that now arises is whether Rome is offering a similar deal with the U.S. Constitution at stake: If Bush backs Rome on abortion and euthanasia, Rome will do what it can to turn U.S. Catholics against the filibuster.

What astonishing paranoia! What ranting conspiracy theorizing! Bush isn't "backing Rome" on abortion and euthanasia, he is backing Christ and holding to beliefs he held long before the Dems started their hate-based campaign against judges with morals.

Miles is breathing pretty thin air here, standing as he is at the top of the massive mountain of truly awful op/ed writers the LAT has foisted on the American public.