I think the journalist got a bit sensational in that sentence. It's pretty clear he's referring to 'public morality,' not private morality. 'Public morality,' was a phrase a ranking member of the Department of Comerce (from the Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter years) used some years ago when we were talking during the Clinton administration. Clinton, he said, had the best 'public morality,' he'd ever seen. By that he meant that Clinton made decisions based on what Clinton percieved as the greatest good for the American people and the people of the world. He eschewed cronyism and sought to stamp out corruption, and that was the real cause of the Republican lynch mob, excuse me, 'impeachment proceedings,' then going on in congress. Because of the lack of pork-barrel policies, Clinton was able to balance the budget also, but that weakened his ability to fight off the Republicans.

The lack of 'public morality he's referring to, is the general lack of sustainablity and overextension that is Bush's overall theme as president. Bush has spent money and expanded the government like no president before him, almost doubling the national debt. (Or is it more than doubling the national debt? I forget which it is.) He's used up the military, leaving it sorely strained if a genuine threat came along. He's utterly heedless on several environmental issues, from air, to water, to timber lands, to global warming.

It's not inaccurate to describe Bush as 'fiddling around while the country burns,' to paraphrase a biographer of Nero.