Liberal Talk Radio

I’m sympathetic to David Brooks’ Santorum position:

For there has been at least one constant in Washington over the past 12 years: almost every time a serious piece of antipoverty legislation surfaces in Congress, Rick Santorum is there playing a leadership role.

[snip many examples of antipoverty legislation and one "man on dog" non-apology]

The bottom line is this: If serious antipoverty work is going to be done, it’s going to emerge from a coalition of liberals and religious conservatives. Without Santorum, that’s less likely to happen. If senators are going to be honestly appraised, it’s going to require commentators who can look beyond the theater of public controversy and at least pretend to care about actual legislation. Santorum has never gotten a fair shake from the media.

And so after Election Day, the underprivileged will probably have lost one of their least cuddly but most effective champions.

Couldn’t one also correctly note that “If serious antipoverty work is going to be done, it’s going to emerge from a Democratically held House and Senate”?

In other words, Santorum might be correct about antipoverty, but I’m sure the U.S. can find someone else just as excited about the same good antipoverty legislation.

Now, that said, I do think there is an undercurrent of anti-Catholic and perhaps anti-Italian and probably anti-blue collar elitism when it comes to how all you all perceive Santorum. You can agree, disagree or strongly disagree, but I’ll put that out there anyway. And I’d like you to consider it, if you don’t mind — you’ll be a stronger person if you do . . .

(*And don’t get me wrong, I’ve played with Santorum in the past . . . oh, I kill myself . . .)