As a rule, I oppose the conflation of sexual allegations with automatically assumed guilt, something that has become rampant on college campuses.  On campus, a woman can "charge" rape, and the accused man is automatically and immediately deemed guilty.  He is then punished without the chance to face his accuser or defend his innocence.  This charge-equals-guilt policy violates every American's constitutional guarantees about "innocent until proven guilty" and the right to "confront your accusers."

Now we have Roy Moore.  He's being charged with an alleged act of sexual harassment his accuser has said happened in 1979, 38 years ago.  This charge is not being made in court, and our constitutional guarantees apply to courts and college star chambers, but not to public allegations.  Instead, this charge is being made in the court of public opinion.  His accuser is, by her own account, a Trump voter and a Republican voter.  Her life has been "messy," with three divorces and financial difficulties.  Those do not excuse what Moore did, if he indeed did anything, and experts will tell you that victims of child sexual abuse (men as well as women) often, as part of their unresolved PTSD, have trouble with relationships and finances.  Those troubles neither discount what the woman said nor convict Roy Moore of the charges – millions of people have divorces or file bankruptcies without having been abused sexually.

So what is a conservative to do, or to think?  Let's start with Steve Bannon's "it's a conspiracy" allegations.  The politically motivated source of these charges against Moore – arch-liberal Jeff Bezos's the Washington Post broke this story, and they've been known to take both a liberal slant and to occasionally play fast and loose with the "facts" when making charges against Trump and Republicans and conservatives – lends a patina of credibility to Bannon's hit-job charges.  However, the fact that this woman claims plausibly to be a Trump-voting conservative seems to put the quietus on Bannon's claims.  Absent legal proceedings that do not seem to be in the offing, we will never know about Bannon's charges.

So that brings us back to the question, "What is a conservative to do, or to think?" 

Absent any proof – absent any possibility of proof – conservatives have to decide, "Is it worth our (political) immortal souls to support someone who might, plausibly, be seen as a child molester?  Or is it worth our political hopes to give the Democrats a shot at another Senate seat when our majority is so thin?" 

Is realpolitik what we're all about, or do we stand for something?

Consider this.  When a liberal Democrat is plausibly charged with gross sexual misconduct, he is lauded by the left, including by women who say they'd gladly "gratify" him as a way of saying "thanks" for his strong stand on abortion.  When a conservative Republican is charged with tapping his foot in a bathroom stall, he is hounded out of the Senate.  Is that obvious double standard fair?  No.  In fact, "hell no!"  But is it right?  Absolutely.

Why?  Because we're the good guys – we're supposed to stand for something.  This means that one of the prices we pay for being the good guys is that some of us will fall (at least until he can be vindicated) by unsubstantiated (or at least unproven) allegations.

What Roy Moore should do is step aside "until I can clear my name."  Then he should take his accuser to court and demand that she prove her charges or admit her allegations as libelous slander.  Then, vindicated, Roy can run for Session's seat when the interim senator has to face re-election in three years.

Is it fair?  Of course not.  But since we're the good guys, this is part of the price we pay for being good.  So is it right?  Hell, yes!  Step aside, Roy, and if you're innocent, clear your name, then come back and win your ultimate vindication.