He's very liberal, he and I disagree on most political issues, but I've always found him to be an incredibly honest historian. He draws different conclusions than I based on the same set of facts he presents. But we both agree on the historicity (and divinity) of Christ, and he relies on many of the same evidences more conservative theologians than he point to, which would likely bother those polemical theologians/politicos who seek historical knowledge to make their arguments, rather than facts and truth for their own sake, and allow them to guide his beliefs according to how he interprets them for the life he lives. His integrity draws me in. For example, he wrote a lengthy book called "Why I Am a Catholic" in which he spends the first 500 pages or so giving reasons why one should definitely NOT be a Catholic: evidences from the right, from the left, etc. And then he takes it all, and explains why he is a Catholic (basically, he sees the Papacy, with all its great faults, as an indispensable institution). He's got a little book called What Jesus Meant, that I found a joy to read - twice - even though I was in disagreement in a number of places. In like fashion he has written extensively on the life and work of Ronald Reagan, and although he and I would argue most vociferously on his policies, I understand Reagan most from what Wills faithfully wrote, and even interpreted, regarding the man.
Anyway, like Wills, I found the discussion here a joy. We'll draw some different conclusions from the same set of facts as we perceive them. But we also find some fellowship in doing so.