On Roy Moore: When did 'proof' become immaterial?

Not so fast, fellows. Most definitely a man in his 30s who tries to make out with a 14-year-old girl deserves 30 days in the electric chair. But have you ever forced yourself to face up to the other side of things?

Because it seems to me that if such a sexual allegation is leveled in the middle of a political campaign 40 years after the alleged depravity, and if those 40 years in the life of the alleged perpetrator were jam-packed with elections of various kinds and a prolific public life and if there's absolutely zero proof of guilt, then maybe the party that leaked the matter to the Washington Post ought to try winning the oncoming election by other means, you know, issues and the like!

As I witness the bipartisan frenzy to dump Judge Roy Moore, the question asks itself, "You mean all you have to do is inject a horrendous accusation into the media and wait for the accused party to be blown away?" And that's it?! The sadistic murderer Ché Guevara, when questioned about the justice of Cuban firing squads working in shifts with no semblance of a trial, proudly boasted, "We execute, not out of bourgeois justice, but out of revolutionary conviction!" This is what I see happening to Judge Roy Moore.

Ché is not the only one able to seek and find "revolutionary conviction." A famous New York-based media personality, who professes adoration for the Bill of Rights, couldn't quit complimenting a popular talk host for asking Judge Moore if he ever dated a girl in her teens while he was in his 30s. The talk host wasn't seeking any special credit for that question, but the famous personality just couldn't quit. He kept repeating something like, "That was brilliant. You've personally ended the campaign of Roy Moore. Moore answered that brilliant question of yours three different ways!" I didn't notice Moore shifting his answer three different ways. But then again I don't want to see anybody executed out of "revolutionary conviction." Where's the proof?

Those who claim to despise rushing to judgment are now racing one another to judgment. The mood wafting off of every TV treatment of this affair so far strikes me as saying, "Moore is obviously guilty, so quit spoiling our fun with all this talk about proof." One senator said, "The allegations against Moore are more convincing than his denials. He must go."

I've never met Judge Moore, and I'm confident if I did we'd never get into a barroom brawl, even though he's a little – just a little – too far right for me, which my friends tell me is quite a huge comment. The interesting thing to me is not the reaction of the American left but rather the reaction of the Senate Republicans, who are falling all over one another to make sure their chest-thumping about "No place in the Senate for such predators!" is heard by one and all. I agree with that. So does Judge Roy Moore. He simply denies his guilt. And there's no way to prove him wrong.

And since there is no way to probe the judge's dating behavior 40 years ago, that clears the deck for a matter of more than tangential importance.

The Senate is currently split with Republicans holding a narrow majority. Judge Moore is quite popular in Alabama, a fact of life that may have triggered this entire sordid episode. But if Judge Moore is somehow ousted from the race and that seat falls to a Democrat, the Senate scoreboard would become even closer.

There's one "hero" whose name I unfortunately missed on the news. He told a profound truth, namely, "Even without this sexual allegation, the nomination of Judge Roy Moore is a bridge too far." Aha! There you have it. Judge Moore and his right-wing, pro-God and pro-Ten Commandments beliefs are simply the wrong fit for far too many Americans.

It will be interesting to watch the result of so many non-Alabamans storming to choose the next senator from Alabama. You've heard the battle cry, "What doesn't kill us makes us stronger!" If Judge Moore isn't blown away by the prevailing firestorms, he may very well out-poll what he would have scored if this had never come up! Next time, the Washington Post might even demand proof!