Pro Ecclesia * Pro Familia * Pro Civitate: Kmiec's Payoff? [UPDATED]

James H at Opinionated Catholic seems to have discovered a potential payoff for Prof. Kmiec's pro-Obama sycophancy: he appears to be angling for an appointment as U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican.

The irony is that both Kmiec and current Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon both served on Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. However, unlike Kmiec, who has touted the so-called "pro-choice" position as "more Catholic" than the view that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, Ambassador Glendon has never pi**ed away her solidly pro-life credentials by defending the indefensible.

UPDATE
Speaking of defending the indefensible, Ramesh Ponnuru reports that Prof. Kmiec has now resorted to defending the Freedom of Choice Act:

Spinning a pro-life case for Obama must be exhausting. Kmiec's latest approach is to deny that the Freedom of Choice Act, which Obama supports, means what its words indicate, what its legislative sponsors say it means, and what pro-abortion lobbying groups say it means. Contrary to Kmiec's assertions, it would sweep away existing state regulations of the abortion right and require that all levels of government fund abortion. Kmiec also claims, falsely, that Obama wants to tighten the "health exception" so that late-term abortions could effectively be regulated. He has never expressed the slightest interest in narrowing the scope of the abortion right protected by the Supreme Court's jurisprudence.

I feel that I have already paid too much attention this year to this silly and confused man, but I gather that Beliefnet is a well-read site, and it keeps publishing Kmiec's claims without bothering to check them for accuracy.

Ramesh's description of Kmiec as "silly and confused" is a rather charitable way of saying "disingenuous and dishonest".

UPDATE #2
At American Papist, Thomas Peters takes on Kmiec's latest pro-Obama shilling efforts here and here.

The first of Thomas' posts to which I've linked includes links to what several other Catholic bloggers, among them Jeff Miller and Amy Welborn, are saying about Kmiec's latest deceit.

And Thomas raises an excellent point here:

... Let me be very clear: what I take issue with here, specifically, is Kmiec's claim that Obama is somehow a natural or obvious choice for Catholic voters. To say that, one must simply dissent from the Church's teaching that abortion, and the legal support of abortion is gravely wrong.

If Kmiec claims to be a Catholic in good standing, a Catholic to whom other Catholics can look with confidence, I'd like to see one example where he has read the recent writings of Catholic bishops on this and related topics.

Endlessly complaining about the persecution one has received from lay Catholics is an empty self-martyrdom if one continues to obstinately avoid dialogue with the shepherds of the Church.

Catholics know this, and Kmiec should know better. If his position is so obviously the Catholic one, why is he scared to approach the shepherds of the Church - the guardians of what truly is Catholic - with his argument?