Jim Wallis Again

Jim Wallis a few months ago:

"When the Democrats became just the party of rights, they lost something, a moral appeal," Wallis contends. The Democratic patchwork frayed as some of its largest constituencies, particularly working-class whites, began to feel culturally estranged from the party. The breaking point was in 1972, when Republican Richard M. Nixon argued that a vote for Democrat George McGovern was a vote for "acid, amnesty and abortion." To many voters, McGovern embodied an emerging perception that liberals were outside the American mainstream.

Jim Wallis today:

So Kos, let’s made a deal. How about if progressive religious folks, like me, make real sure that we never say, or even suggest, that values have to come from faith – and progressive secular folks, like you, never suggest that progressive values can’t come from faith (and perhaps concede that, in fact, they often do). If we progressives, religious and secular, could stop fighting among ourselves (shooting ourselves in the foot) and join together on some really big values issues – like economic fairness, health care, and a more just foreign policy – think of the difference we could make. How about it?

You first Jim. As Kos responded:

I have no idea what Wallis is talking about. Isn't his point exactly what I wrote? Maybe I'm missing something, but it's as if Wallis didn't bother reading my post and merely heard about it second-hand.

With "friends" like Jim Wallis, Dems need no enemies.

See also Frederick Clarkson and PastorDan.

< DC Circuit Rules Constitutional Habeas Does Not Extend To Guantanamo | Blair Cuts and Runs From Bush >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Amnesia? (1.00 / 1) (#1)
    by jarober on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 09:36:20 PM EST
    Perhaps you've already forgotten the bloggers that left the Edwards campaign - you know, the ones you wrote tons and tons of hateful, obnoxious things about Catholics in particular, and Christians in general.  

    The left side of the blogosphere was furious, and defended them in spite of their nasty rhetoric.  If you can't see what Christians might find offensive about the writings of Marcotte and McEwan, then of course you'll find Wallis' post confusing.  

    I suggest (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 10:17:59 PM EST
    you review my writings in defense of Marcotte . . . Oh wait, there were none.

    Or Kos' - oh wait . . .


    Small pond (none / 0) (#3)
    by janinsanfran on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 10:49:28 PM EST
    two big fish. Trouble.

    Hmm (none / 0) (#4)
    by jarober on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 11:01:10 PM EST
    There's this, on TL - apparently, "standing up to the right wing" was far more relevant than the hate.  I try to avoid Daily Kos, for the same reasons that I try to avoid Ann Coulter - I can only take so much shrill stupidity at any one time.

    Don't worry Jarobe (none / 0) (#5)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 11:50:58 PM EST
    Some colorful internet blogging is not going to close your precious places of worship, as long as those beliefs stay IN those places of worship. You folks sure spook easily.

    What you do in your own home is your business. The people you defend would make it their business.