Which is worse?

Now that W is a lame duck (and isn't that an insult to ducks and lame creatures everywhere?), he apparently is feeling a little freer to share real thoughts. This week, he upset lots of the Christian extremists by saying, among other things, that he doesn't believe that everything in the bible is literally true. Well, how refreshing.

While I like to hear that bit of sense and rational thought from him--it's nice that he's capable of some measure of rational thought--what does it say about him that he has been toeing the line and supporting extremist views for 8 years for reasons of political expediency?

All politicians--at least, all successful ones--make compromises, but this is so troubling. It fits, though. One story about George W. Bush that I remember is that, many years ago, as a younger man, he got on the case of a homophobe. I forget the exact words he is alleged to have said, but it was something about not judging the other man. It was a story that gave me a wee bit of hope for him at the time. Not that I ever voted for him, but I thought that maybe he wasn't so bad of a person.

It seems that, perhaps, he isn't so bad in his heart, but is that better or worse than just being a religious extremist? What kind of person knows what's right (compassion, empathy and the like) but sets that aside for politics?

I don't feel angry right now. At some level, I feel pity for him. I feel pity and sadness that this is what ambition and politics so often beget.