UneasyOne wrote: "...I was an alter boy-- UnEasyOne..."

You're lucky; many young boys were "altered" by being abused by Roman Catholic priests; consider yourself damned lucky.

The hilarity, btw, is that the word is "altar", but, it's actually funnier if you WERE an "altered boy".

I'm just sayin'...

To think that I was raised under the auspices of Pope Pious (there is an oxymoran waiting to be discussed), spoon fed massive quantities of brainwashing hypocritical hogwash in the form of Catachism (sp?) and find 50 years later that it is all about power and f--king little boys makes me glad that I have nothing to do with these thieves' of souls. Sure there is some nice art to reflect on and some interesting architecture but at what cost??? If Jesus is/was god and came back to see this he would puke, in fact, when I hear about these pedophilic monsters I want to puke. Guiliani, indeed...The only good news here is that once the popularity contest is over and the real Republicans get ahold of him, he will be sausage. Ciao Rudi, you are an immensely disturbing human being and your lack of critical judgement about who you surround yourself will defeat you. We may all be stupid Americans, but after 8 years of Rove and Cheney, even we, dumb as we are, know that you rely directly on the same scare and fear tactics. We also know that you can't make us safer, and in your bluster and potentially idiotic actions will only make us more vulnerable to the hateful fringe elements of terror.

Retire to the speaking circuit and vacation in the Poconos

We don't seem to be having a dialogue here. You seem to be in soliloquy mode. I think I am pretty clear that I am talking about moral issues here and not legal ones. If you are only interested in legal issues, then I suppose you think what the Bush folks have done is mostly okay since they seem to have no trouble getting some sort of legal stamp on most of their behavior. I don't see any of them running from the law.

You, meantime, seem to not want to discuss at all the harm that certain behavior causes. I am beginning to think that you are trying to evade grappling with the harm that molestation does to children. Why is that exactly?

A little bit of running from the cops? A small amount of identity theft?

Are you really equating child sexual abuse with being behind on child support or parking tickets?

Look at the thread that took Clinton to task for having someone on her team has ties with a company that does public relations against unions. This is a legitmate issue, but it is no crime. Since Placa apparently worked for the Catholic Church to hide the truth about these pedophile priests, it is certainly legimate to raise issues concerning his character. Not only that, but one of the people mentioned in the article accuses Placa of sexually abusing him. What people seem to be missing here is that Placa missed his day in court due to a statute of limitations on that particular crime. While he has not been found guilty at trial, he most certainly has not been found innocent either.

As voters, we can consider anything we wish a factor in our ultimate vote. Someone who employs someone like Placa would be way down on my list. (Leaving aside other reasons I find Guiliani unacceptable.)

Let us look at your list:

A. Someone in their employ with overdue parking tickets.

B. Someone in their employ with overdue child support.

C. Someone in their employ who uses recreational drugs.

D. Someone in their employ who aids child molesters.

I know which would be a deal breaker for me. Which one would you choose?

What two people, a German shepherd some heat shrink tubing and a hair dryer do behind closed doors is their problem. But the point here is that someone Rudy is abusing his position if not to break a law certainly bend one. So if that's a no-no I want to know what's excusable and what's not? What if a candidate is a scofflaw or behind on his child support or he uses his office get his wife a special parking space?

Use of recreational marijuana by adults when not in the presence of children only impacts the person using in terms of harmfulness as long as that person is not operating machinery (car) in the public sphere.

Therefore, that analogy is weak in my opinion. Suppose we had a president that smoked weed every evening much in the same way that others will have a glass of wine. This is no problem for me. Sure he/she sets a better example by obeying the law, but that is a private activity that exploits no one.

In fact, I don't care if the president, the vice president, and the entire cabinet smoke pot in moderation as long as they govern well. (I think it would Bush's VP Cheney some good!) Marijuana use is against the law because the government takes an interest in it and not because it is immoral in and of itself. The exploitation of children for sexual purposes is immoral. Covering up crimes of the exploitation of children for sexual purposes is immoral. Here we have the difference between a crime without a victim and a crime with a victim.

Or did I misunderstand your post?

(I also don't care if the president wears a Versace evening gown with Manolos and glittery eyeshadow every evening.)

I mean other than the politically polarizing point about whether a candidate smokes weed, it's still a crime or at least a violation in most places. Where I live simple possession of even one joint is punishable typically by up to 60 days in jail. In real terms that's converted to 12 months probation. So if a candidate gives a vague answer about recreational drug use do we forgive it? Or do we apply the Salon Giulliani rule for zero tolerance?