Again, yes and if there were a better option I'd take it. However, I'll still take the person who starts at the right point and makes mistakes over someone who's starting at the wrong place to begin with.

But what if that person who's "starting at the wrong place" (meaning has a different faith than you do) makes better decisions, and, just coincidentally, makes decisions that fall more in line with your beliefs than the guy who supposedly follows your faith? As a hypothetical exercise, let's say a Jewish Republican candidate emerged, whose political platform, decision-making, etc. matched up with what you think is right. Wouldn't you vote for that guy instead of Bush, whom you acknowledge as falling short on many of his decisions? Or does being Christian give Bush a free pass? If it doesn't completely exonerate him, how much does he have to screw up before you'd consider placing your vote with someone of a different religious background?

It seems to me that it's possible that someone can start off with a "moral compass" and religious persuasion completely different from yours, but arrive at many of the same political decisions.