Who was weaker in terms of Moral Authority - Clinton or Bush? It's hard to say. Clinton lied under oath and appeared to use the White House as his own little tryst house. Bush told us that torture was OK, habeus corpus was a nice to have (not a need to have), and that wiretapping Americans was fine if it was for a good cause. And I won't even bring up the war. I think both these guys failed us spectacularly in terms of moral authority - but that Bush damaged the country more through his moral weakness.

Ask the 30,000 civilians that are dead because of his often-lied-about war. . .oh kids, dubya gave you this number so you know it's much higher- this guy has never had a handle on the truth concerning Iraq. Moral Authority? A stand-up joke for the remainder of our lifetimes. . .

He opposed the Family Medical Leave Act. That's good for a 5-star rating.

Well John, I agree that he was better than his predecessor. Fewer indictments in his cabinet anyway. I somehow suspect you're rating the wrong Bush.

Better than average.Certainly better than his predecessor.All the garbage with the Republican party really ain't his fault.

His moral authority, immediately after the Gulf War, was astronomical. His domestic enemies (Bill Clinton, Dan Rather, most of the US political press) were successful in characterizing him as aloof and out of touch, completely oblivious to the needs of everyday Americans, and uncaring about domestic programs. In fairness, that's what you do to win elections. Bush did nothing to define himself differently, and lost his bid for re-election, with his feet still in the starting blocks. A 2nd Bush term would have been fascinating as, worldwide, he enjoyed enormous moral authority. But when the American people abruptly fired him in November 1992, his bubble of moral authority burst and was lost to America.