.... I’d rather have a less intelligent (...) president than one whose values I don’t agree with.

I think I would have to agree with this if that's what it came down to, but I don't like the thought of this trade-off.

I think that there's a bias here, too, that I'm betting I suffer from along with everybody else: If we agree with someone's "values", we think they are smarter!

And since candidates are generally diametrically opposed on values, I think a lot of times that ends up being the deciding factor.

Not sure about diametrically opposed (probably doesn't appear that way from far right or left) but agree on deciding factor.

Thankfully, the president doesn’t have to rely on his own intelligence to get the job done.

Witness Ronald Reagan....this presupposed some latitude, though, on what "the job" is. (Hmmmm, maybe if Reagan had had Jed Bartlett's script writer, I would have been completely happy and none the wiser!)

The problem, though, and what has really disappointed me is how political politics are.

You win the irony award! It is so funny to read that statement, but I think I know what you mean.

At one point (before the election) W came to “give his testimony” at the church I was attending. [....] Instead of the testimony we were promised, however, what I got was a typed speech that was so political it didn’t say much beyond that he planned on following his “faith” (which he never expounded upon) in office.

Reporters are everywhere, as are speechwriters trying to outwit the reporters. Especially if your guy isn't the nimblest thinker/speaker, then careful scripting is important. Don't say anything too heartfelt or committed (on a subject like religion) lest it appear in the Washington Post and provide fodder for critics (like me!). Speak always in generalities that listeners can adapt to their own values systems ("Hmmm. Not sure, but I think the candidate just strongly agreed with me!!")

Though this didn’t cause me to dislike Bush nor believe that he’s not a man of faith, the experience showed me that a politician is first and foremost just that. Yes he does share many of my values, but he is so busy being a politician it’s difficult for the “real” man to come out. Everything is about his public life and policy.

I guess I'm not as inclined to adjust to this. To me, what somebody does, how they behave, what they are busy with, *is* the real man/person.

I don’t believe this is a problem with Bush alone, but politics in general. I’d guess that I would have felt the same way if I’d been a Gore supporter and heard him speak in a similar setting.

As someone who was inclined to support Gore, I would agree. At some point principles and goals seemed to vanish. The word that came to mind for both campaigns, but Gore's even moreso: "grasping".

In the end, I guess that I was naïve to think running the country could ever be about the people electing a person who best embodies their ideals. Instead we hire professionals who know how to play the game. Maybe that shouldn’t bother me, but it does.

Why shouldn't it bother you?

I *try* not to idealize. We have occasionally had inept presidents for a long time. Even presidents who inspire a degree of reverence today (I think of Lincoln, TR and FDR) were reviled by different groups in their time and were targets of assassins. The polarization over FDR, someone I idealize/adore, always amazes me. I have to remember, though, that all those folks were consumate politicians. I wonder how TR would behave in the Age of TV?