Inoculate, v.t.  To introduce immunologically active material (as an antibody or antigen) into especially in order to treat or prevent a disease.

Vince Illuzzi, itinerant candidate, has been given a gift. The bestower of the gift is one Jon Margolis, veteran journalist and now political analyst for VTDigger. In a post dated June 28, Margolis considers Illuzzi’s ethically troubled past and whether it should be a factor in his candidacy for state Auditor of Accounts.

For those just joining us, Illuzzi has been a state senator for 32 years and is also state’s attorney for Essex County. But back in the 1990s, his license to practice law was suspended for almost five years and very nearly revoked permanently, over a series of legal and ethical violations. From the GMD archive, a couple of recommended reads: a former GMDer examines Illuzzi’s record in 2007 at a time when some were talking up a possible independent candidacy for Governor; and a well-connected commenter JFXM writes about Illuzzi’s failings (scroll down to Mahoney’s comment, last in the sequence).

After the jump: An absurd comparison, and a journalist’s benediction.  

I’m quoted in the article because I was the first one to bring up Illuzzi’s past during this election cycle, back when he was considering a run for Attorney General. I thought it completely absurd that someone with such a checkered history as a lawyer should be considered for the top legal position in the state, and wrote multiple diaries on the subject — and on the seeming reluctance of the Vermont media to explore it, or even mention it at all.

In his VTDigger piece, Margolis gives an abbreviated account of Illuzzi’s legal troubles, which is reasonably presented as far as it goes. (An abbreviated version naturally doesn’t wield the heft of a full accounting, and makes it easier for a reader to minimize the importance of his wrongdoing.) But Margolis goes off the rails, IMHO, when he turns to the question of whether Illuzzi’s misdeeds should be part of the debate this year. He posits the notion of a “political statute of limitations,” and basically fires a warning shot across the Democratic bow:

If Democrats – overtly or covertly – do try to bring up Illuzzi’s past, the tactic could backfire as voters decide bygones are bygones.

Then comes the real howler.

People do change. Even politicians. To take just one example – but one that might interest active Democrats – Robert F. Kennedy at 35 was brash, sometimes small-minded, and occasionally vindictive when he managed his brother’s campaign for president in 1960. A few years later, tempered by tragedy and experience, he had not lost all those traits, but they were buffered by increasing tolerance, generosity and openness to new ideas.

Vince Illuzzi, to paraphrase the late Sen. Lloyd Bentsen’s wisecrack of the 1988 campaign, is no Bobby Kennedy. He has faced no comparable tragedy. But he, too, seems to have matured.

Yikes. Nice of Margolis to concede that Illuzzi is no Bobby Kennedy. But why bring up RFK at all? You could make an equally valid comparison to another iconic figure from that era — Richard M. Nixon. In his 30s he was an amoral politician with a paranoid streak, known for Red-baiting his opponents and shedding crocodile tears in his famous Checkers speech. When he ran for president in 1968, we heard over and over again about the New Nixon. But eventually, it turned out to be the same old Tricky Dick — vengeful, amoral, paranoid, self-destructive.

Yes, Mr. Margolis, people do change. But far more often, they don’t. Especially in the absence of life-changing trauma, like the assassination of a brother and an agonizing internal conflict over the Vietnam War.

Also, in addition to Illuzzi’s ethical lapses, there are stories all around the Statehouse of his bouts of anger and vengefulness. This, from Margolis’ 2001 Globe piece:

“People are afraid to cross him because he has this reputation that he’ll stop at nothing to get revenge,” says one former official, and even Senator Elizabeth Ready, a Democxrat who is one of Illuzzi’s closest friends, says, “He doesn’t forget the people who have hurt him.”

Is that the kind of person we want in the influential but vaguely-defined office of Auditor? If he’s truly changed and matured, perhaps. If he hasn’t, like Nixon, then he could raise some holy (but unwarranted) Hell in the Auditor’s chair.

Margolis closes his VTDigger piece with some tender sentiments:

“Everybody grows and matures and learns from their mistakes,” Illuzzi said. He hopes voters think he has matured enough to ignore the less admirable parts of his past. It’s too much for him to hope that nobody mentions them.

Awwww. Let’s all hope that the nasty Democrats don’t hurt Vince’s fee-fees by dredging up the distant past. If, in fact, 14 years qualifies as “distant.”

My position: as I said, Illuzzi’s entanglements with legal ethics are less germane to the Auditor’s office than to the AG’s. But they are at least somewhat germane. A thorough consideration of his candidacy must, of necessity, include a full review of his wrongdoings and the questions about his temperament. If, after that review, the people of Vermont decide he should be their Auditor, then fine. But the past shouldn’t be swept under the rug — even if Vince Illuzzi would wish it so.

Especially if Vince Illuzzi would wish it so.