Never was molested, never fended off any kind of pass, never even suspected that sort of thing went on.

Having said that, I'll say this. We are talking about a guy who made a career of covering for molesters and has been suspended from his priestly duties due to the grand jury testimony of his victims, one of whom has taken the extraordinarily courageous step of going public. A previous poster pointed out the unreliability of "recovered memories." I would agree with that, but there is absolutely no indication that that is what we are dealing with here. We can be reasonably confident that there was more than one victim because church authorities had access to the victim testimony before even the grand jury. It is unlikely in the extreme that this priest was suspended because he put his hand on one boy's leg. If I were on a jury, I'd have to have a lot more than logic and inference to convict this bastard and throw him in jail or even find him liable in a civil suit. But we know what the deal is - except for a few apologists who seem to be in complete denial.

There is a lot of smoke here; and Rudy knows there is an underlying fire - just as he did with Bernie Kerik. Imagine the uproar in the press if a Democratic presidential candidate was so closely associated with a such seamy cast of characters! "Innocent until proven guilty" is applicable if there is to be a trial. There is not, but this priest has been judged by his peers and suspended from his duties. They saw what we are denied - evidence of his guilt. So I have no problem convicting him in the court of public opinion and more at issue here, convicting Guiliani for his association with the creep.

In the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, however, spokesman Todd Tamberg said that archdiocesan policy would prevent a priest on administrative leave for allegations of sexual abuse from being a "priest in residence. "If you've been put on administrative leave you not only are restricted from functioning as a priest or dressing as a priest but also from living on church property."

The spokesman is being disingenuous and is propagandizing in an attempt to cover up an ongoing case in Los Angeles.

Rev. Carl Sutphin was a seminary classmate of the now Cardinal of Los Angeles, Roger Mahony, and they have been close friends for decades. When Sutphin was accused by dozens of his victims, he fled to sanctuary in Archbishop Mahony's apartments and stayed there for two years, out of reach of the district attorny and police who were actively trying to question him. Mahony kept Sutphin in his own domicile, which is owned by the Church. So while Sutphin may not have been dressing or functioning as a priest, he was a publicly accused child molester and was living on Church property. He is still free to this day.

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?

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.)

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?

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?