Poor Mitt. Poor, poor, poor Mitt. He dragged himself all over the Deep South, pretended to like NASCAR and (American) football. He said “Y’all,” choked down some Cheesy Grits, and imperiled his Ferragamos by stomping a cockroach. He said all the ridiculous things his overpaid gaggle of advisers told him to say.

And this is the thanks he gets? Those yokels stick a Whoopie cushion in his club chair?

Do they not know their place?

Do they not realize how fortunate they are that this giant of a man, this financial Colossus, would deign to descend from on high and accept the mantle of Their Leader?

Apparently not.

After the jump: Abrams Tank v. Clown Car. Guess who wins?

Remember me? I’m the guy who wrote, back on January 10, that it was in the bag, it was all over, Mitt was gonna win the nomination. And while he remains the favorite, despite his third-place showings in West and East Yayhoo, it’s looking more and more like the prize won’t be worth winning. And it certainly won’t be worth the price he’s paid — in his own wealth, his dignity and self-respect*, and in the quiet snickering he’ll hear at the country club.

*Yes, I think he’s got those things. He’s just put them in a blind trust for the duration of the campaign.

Well, I’m here to explain why Mitt hasn’t sewn up the nomination. And might actually lose it. In which case, they won’t be snickering down at the club, they’ll be laughing out loud. And come September he’ll open the safe deposit box where he stashed away his dignity, self-respect, and soul, and discover that it’s empty.

I still think I was right on January 10:

The primary race is about to kick into ridiculously high gear. …Which means that Mitt’s big advantages — in money and organization — are about to become decisive.

None of his challengers can come close to equaling Mitt’s machine. They’re each just hoping to slow down the Mittmentum enough to give voters another chance to change their minds. Won’t happen.

I was right, that is, under any reasonable permutation of the process. What I didn’t see was exactly how bad, how awful, how execrable, a candidate Mitt Romney would prove to be. He combines the physical grace of Al Gore, the easy bonhomie of John Kerry, the natural charm of Bob Dole, and the forthright honesty of Richard M. Nixon. His overwhelming political advantages have gone pfffft in a cloud of Thurston Howell gaffes, transparent posturing, and doomed attempts to connect with Real People that stink of blatant condescension.

“You might be shaking the president’s hand,” Mr. Romney told a man in Mobile…

On the other hand, you might be shaking the hand of the biggest schmuck in These United States.

Let’s look at Mitt’s Road to the White House. Or to political ignominy, whichever comes first. He’s been running for President since at least 2006, in spite of his ludicrous denials. He used his own millions to buy a seat in the center of the 2008 race. And while he lost to John McCain, he did cement himself as the Guy Whose Turn It Would Be in 2012.

He continued to spend and fundraise, building a campaign infrastructure that nobody else could match. He used his contacts in the world of the One Percent to build himself a war chest that didn’t rely on his own money. He sailed into 2011 as the clear front-runner.

Then everything broke his way. The two guys who might have contended for the title of “conservative enough to win the nomination but plausibly moderate enough to appeal to the center,” Jon Huntsman and Tim Pawlenty, never got out of the starting gate. Others with potential appeal, like Chris Christie and Mitch Daniels — there’s a sad commentary on the state of the Grand Old Party, that those mooks qualified as Great White Hopes — stayed out of the fray. Which left Mitt (and his Abrams tank of a campaign) to simply fend off a rotating Clown Car o’ Candidates unworthy of the seediest downmarket sideshow.

Really. Did ever a major-party candidate face such a pathetic field of contenders? Look at the Democrats in 2008, by contrast: not only did you have Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, but also Joe Biden and Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson. Any of them would have been far more qualified for the presidency than anyone in the GOP Clown Car. Dennis Kucinich was no more ridiculous than Ron Paul, John Edwards no more narcissistic than Newt Gingrich, and Mike Gravel much smarter than Rick Perry.

And Mitt can’t put these guys away. It’s like an all-star baseball team playing the 1899 Cleveland Spiders, and having the series go seven games.

William of Ockham would have something to say about this. And it wouldn’t be flattering to Willard “Mitt” Romney.  

Oh no! The apocalypse is upon us!

Property tax rate likely headed up another penny

My blood pressure cranked as I read those words from the Vermont Press Bureau. Cue the outrage on Common Sense Radio! The spittle-flecked postings on Vermont Tiger! The doom-fueled bleatings of El Jefe General John McClaughry! Fire up Jack Lindley’s mimeograph machine! Those perfidious Democrats, forcing our tax rates ever higher in spite of the broad-based anti-tax fervor of the Green Mountain populace!

Wait, what’s that?

The House last month approved a 1-cent increase in the statewide rate, bringing the figure from 87 cents to 88 cents. But that was before Vermonters headed to town meeting. And the school budgets approved last Tuesday, lawmakers learned today, included much higher increases than legislators had projected.

Oh, so the outraged voters did it to themselves.  

Because state school aid is partly based on local taxation, the voters’ generosity will mean greater demands on the state education fund, and the state property tax will go to 89 cents in order to maintain an acceptable balance in the fund.

How generous were the voters?

Of the 226 [school] budget votes, only seven went down. Districts collectively will spend about 2.9 percent more next year than they did this year. Twenty-two towns have yet to vote on their school budgets, though those districts aren’t large enough to impact the overall spending trajectory.

Very generous indeed. More generous, in fact, than our big-spending Democrat Governor.

Gov. Peter Shumlin had urged districts to hold the line on school spending. Doing so, he said, would allow the state to likewise hold the line on statewide property taxes.

Well, Jeezum Crow. There go two big conservative talking points: the notion that Vermonters are “taxed to death” and are ready to re-form the Green Mountain Boys and wipe out our librul overlords… and the notion that everyone’s sick and tired of our terrible, horrible very bad public schools.

Truth is, most Vermonters are willing to pay taxes for good public services. And, at least in terms of public education, they still think they’re getting a good deal.  

Hmmmm. Interesting little development on that vtBuzz posting I mentioned in my previous diary. So far, one comment has been posted beneath it:

Didn’t he get his license suspended years ago?

The author of the comment: Tayt Brooks.

There aren’t too many guys named “Tayt” around these parts, so I’m going to assume that this is the Tayt Brooks who ran Kurt Wright’s campaign for Mayor of Burlington. Who before that was Executive Director of the Vermont Republican Party. Who before that held a Cabinet position in the Douglas Administration. Who before that was an undersecretary in Douglas’ cabinet. Who before that was chief lobbyist for the Home Builders’ Association.  

In short: tried and true Republican, well-connected insider.

At a time when Republicans are supposedly urging Illuzzi to run for AG, why is this guy calling attention — albeit with studied innocence — to Illuzzi’s checkered past?

My suspicion, and that’s all it is, no evidence whatsoever: The Republicans would like to see him run for AG so they can be rid of an unreliable Senator with loads of seniority, hoping to replace him with a doctrinaire conservative. My question: Is the Republican Party putting Illuzzi in a lifeboat and trying to convince him it’s a yacht?  

We have a winner! WDEV talk show host Mark Johnson has finally broken the Vince Illuzzi Media Whitewash!

Brief recap: Longtime State Senator Vince Illuzzi is considering a run for Attorney General. He has a long and dismal record on legal ethics, having been repeatedly brought to task by the Bar and the Judiciary. His law license was suspended for over four years in the mid-90s, and was very nearly revoked. (See my previous diary for some of the details.)

Illuzzi was a guest on the Mark Johnson Show this morning, and Mark held his feet to the fire pretty thoroughly on his past ethical problems. If you missed it, Mark puts his shows in a podcast archive — usually within 24 hours or so.  

Highlights… after the jump.  

First, Illuzzi confirmed that he’s 75% sure that he’ll run, that he won’t make a final decision until after the Legislative session is over because he doesn’t want his Senate activities perceived as political blah blah blah*, and that he’s pondering whether he’d run as a Republican or Independent.  

*I hate that excuse. It’s flimsy as hell. You can tell when somebody’s planning to run for something; Illuzzi has pursued quite a few high-profile issues of late, that are clearly aimed at raising his profile as a fair-minded independent kind of guy. And our campaign finance laws let these guys get away with it; the initial reporting deadline isn’t until July 1st. In this day and age, that’s laughable. But I digress.

Also note that, although Illuzzi stuck to his 75% estimate, the conversation quickly adopts the future definite tense — “I will,” rather than “I would.” So that 75 is probably a teensy bit low.

After asking about the job Bill Sorrell has done and getting the requisite non-answer (“It’s not about his record, it’s about what I would bring to the position”), Mark launched directly into Illuzzi’s past ethical troubles.

Mark: Is it reasonable to run for AG with all the troubles you had in the 90s? A slew of ethical charges, and having your law license suspended?

Illuzzi: It’s a fair question. The issues placed me in a position — one was we had — The courts had been trying to close the Essex County Courthouse. We passed a law mandating that Essex County cases be tried there. This judge didn’t want to drive up there, so he moved the cases. I pursued the matter; the judiciary disagreed with me, and turned around and filed charges against me. I acknowledge that, from their perspective, I was wrong.

Stop right there. Illuzzi’s history is backwards in a completely self-serving way. As the Supreme Court record clearly states, the ethical case against Illuzzi was filed, and THEN he started pursuing the judge — David Suntag, whose wife Wendy Collins was handling the State Bar’s ethical case against Illuzzi. The Court record states that Illuzzi pursued Suntag because he was mad at Collins.

Mark: There were other problems, too. You directly contacted an insurance company instead of going through its counsel.

Illuzzi: That was an interesting time in the law. A number of attorneys including myself would contact insurance companies, which were not directly parties to the litigation. This was hotly contested, and the Supreme Court ruled against me. I made a mistake and moved on.

Mark: Don’t you think your opponent would raise these questions?

Illuzzi: They will and I’ll answer them. If that’s the focus of the campaign, I’ll lose. But you can’t wash away my 32 years of service in the Legislature. It’s a balance. If people are looking for a reason to vote against me, you’ve given it to them. If they look at my record and experience, they’ll vote for me.

Mark: But can you overcome those ethical questions?

Illuzzi: I have in other aspects of my life. I’ve been the Essex County Attorney since 1998, I’ve had a successful law practice. If folks think all of that is secondary, then I’ll lose. My constituents saw all of this up close —

Mark: But that’s different. You were running for Senate. Now you’re running for the state’s top legal job.

Illuzzi: Well, that’s all I can offer.

Mark: Why would you roll the dice and give up 32 years of seniority? You can’t run for both, can you?

Illuzzi: I could, but I wouldn’t. After 32 years, it’s reasonable to consider using my experience in a different way. My life is a bit overwhelming right now; I have three jobs, and a demanding schedule. As i get older, it’s harder to keep up. I’ve been thinking about cutting back. It makes sense to refocus on one thing.

Interesting bit of news there. So he’s likely giving up his Senate seat because he’s tired of chasing three part-time jobs all over creation. Can’t say I blame him, and it’s a decent explanation for why he’s willing to risk 32 years of seniority on what he himself acknowledges is a real gamble.

There you go. Mark didn’t tackle every aspect of Illuzzi’s ethical record, but I thought he did a very good job of directly confronting the guy. I hope this opens the gates for all Vermont media to directly tackle Vince Illuzzi’s record, and explore whether or not he is fit to occupy the position of the state’s top legal officer.  

Here comes vtBuzz, the Burlington Free Press’ politics blog, to (rightfully) claim credit for first reporting the Illuzzi-for-AG rumor back on 2/27. And advancing the story by accumulating all the recent rumors elsewhere.

And, again, not mentioning Illuzzi’s ethical troubles. Like, for instance, getting his law license suspended and almost losing it permanently.

Since vtBuzz didn’t mention Illuzzi’s past in its 2/27 post either (I hadn’t started my count yet, and forgot to include it when I did), they get two points in our ongoing Vince Illuzzi Media Whitewash count. As with the other four mentions of a possible Illuzzi candidacy in Vermont media, the vtBuzz postings were brief. However, you’d think that “almost losing his law license” might be among the first things mentioned if you were reporting on a potential candidate for Attorney General.

After the jump: some ugly facts from the official record.  

Here’s one juicy tidbit from Illuzzi’s decidedly checkered legal career: A reading from Vermont Supreme Court Docket 95-346, in re Vincent Illuzzi.

Respondent and bar counsel stipulated to the following facts and conclusions.  Respondent was admitted to practice law in Vermont in 1979. He is a state senator and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  In 1993, respondent was the subject of professional conduct proceedings that resulted in his suspension from the practice of law.  Respondent has been under suspension since September 1, 1993.  

Okay, got that? It’s 1995, and Illuzzi has been under suspension since 1993.

Until February 1993, respondent had never filed a complaint with the Judicial Conduct Board.  He then filed three complaints on Senate letterhead against Judge Suntag, during the professional conduct proceedings that resulted in the current suspension. Those proceedings were prosecuted by Judge Suntag’s wife, Wendy Collins, who was bar counsel at that time.  Respondent filed the three complaints with reckless disregard of obvious facts and basic legal principles because he was angry with Attorney Collins and dislikes Judge Suntag.

In case the legalese needs untangling: Attorney Wendy Collins was counsel for the State Bar Association in the probe of Illuzzi’s unethical doings. Her husband was Judge David Suntag. In the midst of Collins’ probe, Illuzzi filed baseless complaints against Suntag because he was mad at Collins. These complaints carried no legal weight, but they certainly carried political weight, coming from an influential State Senator who already had 15 years’ seniority at the time.

Based on the three complaints, respondent stipulated to violations of DR 8-101(A)(2) (lawyer who holds public office shall not use position to influence tribunal to act in favor of himself or client); DR 1-102(A)(5) (lawyer shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to administration of justice); and DR 1-102(A)(7) (lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law).  The parties jointly recommended that respondent be suspended for a period of eighteen months, effective October 13, 1994.  The Board accepted the stipulation to facts and ethical violations but rejected the recommended sanction.  It recommends that respondent be disbarred.

“Respondent stipulated” is legalese for “Illuzzi admitted his guilt on the record.” Three counts: using his public office to influence court proceedings, conduct prejudicial to administration of justice, and conduct displaying a lack of fitness to practice law.

The State Bar’s Professional Conduct Board recommended that Illuzzi be permanently stripped of his law license. The Supreme Court decided to reduce the penalty to a continued suspension. Illuzzi’s license was reinstated in 1998.

This is the most serious episode in Illuzzi’s legal career, but there are others. Publicly available information can easily be found by a moderately enterprising reporter. (I found this Supreme Court docket in a couple minutes on Google.) These official proceedings reveal Illuzzi as a man with a propensity for ignoring ethical standards and for seeking vengeance on his foes.

I’m not necessarily saying that Vince Illuzzi is unfit to be Attorney General. (Although speaking purely for myself, there’s no way in hell I’d vote for the guy.) What I’m saying — and will keep saying until Vermont media start paying attention — is that there are serious, real, unavoidable questions about Illuzzi’s fitness for the position. These questions must be fully addressed, the sooner the better. They should certainly be fully and publicly explored long before Vince Illuzzi is handed a major-party nomination for Attorney General.  

Hey, a little good news for your Sunday brunch. I was checking my Twitter feed last night, and noticed a pair of Tweets in support of Bo Muller-Moore, the “Eat More Kale” guy who’s trying to get funding for a documentary about his fight against Chick-Fil-A, which claims everlasting copyright for any use of the phrase “Eat More.”

The Tweets were from none other than Neil Gaiman, the award-winning best-selling all-around brilliant writer. He’s urging his Twitter followers to donate to Bo’s Kickstarter campaign.

Mr. Gaiman has 1,693,657 followers.

That should help a bit.

As of right now, Bo’s Kickstarter campaign has raised nearly $26,000. The goal is $75,000, and there are 14 days left. I suspect he’s about to get a substantial boost.  

A couple days ago, I set the Over/Under on Bernie Sanders’ re-election at 68%. A pretty high standard; the only time he’s gotten more is when he trounced Karen Kerin for Congress a few years back. My thinking was that his newly-declared opponent, John MacGovern, would be a pushover.

On further reflection, I have a feeling this could turn out to be an expensive, nasty race. I still don’t think MacGovern has a snowball’s chance of winning; he’s far too right-wing for this state, and he’s unknown outside of Windsor County. (His name recognition there consists of getting his butt handed to him in two bids for State Senate.) But I now believe he might do more damage than I initially thought.

See, his professional schtick for the last ten years has been the Hanover Institute, an outlet for right-wing Dartmouth alumni to criticize (and file suit against) the current administration. A non-profit outlet, donations to which are tax-deductible. Mr. MacGovern has raised an astounding pile of money for this endeavor (as much as $800,000 a year), and presumably made himself a lot of wealthy friends.

With his expertise in bogus nonprofits and his contacts among the One Percent, I could see him setting up a 501(c)4 — a bogus nonprofit “voter education” committee whose real purpose is thinly-veiled electioneering. We’ve already got two big 501(c)4’s operating in Vermont: Bruce Lisman’s Campaign for Bru– er, Vermont — and Vermonters for Health Care Freedom. These 501(c)4’s offer tax-deductible status to their donors, and they operate virtually in the dark; the requirements for reporting donors and expenditures are astoundingly lax.  

This is an obvious way for MacGovern to leverage his contacts into political muscle. And while he can’t possibly defeat Bernie, he could make it a really dirty, messy, unpleasant campaign. So, on second thought, I’d bet on under 68%,  

Late add: I’ve corrected a mistake in this post. MacGovern was not a Congressman from Massachusetts; he was a State Representative. Big difference.

(For those unfamiliar with sports gambling terminology, an "Over/Under" bet is placed on a particular statistical outcome in a game. Not on the winner or loser, but on some aspect of the game. The classic football "Over/Under" is on the total number of points scored, but it could be on the number of touchdown passes by a quarterback, the number of home runs in a baseball game, etc. In this case, you'd be betting on whether Bernie will get more or less than 68% of the vote. Handicapping info below.)  

Well, well, the Republican Party has a new champion who will take on the Ungentle Giant of Vermont politics, Sen. Bernie Sanders. The plucky guy is John MacGovern, a Dartmouth alum and former four-term State Representative in Massachusetts.* Seven Days' Andy Bromage has written an overview of his resume, which I recommend reading. But I'll fill in a few items here.  

*We should stipulate here that MacGovern doesn't have a stranglehold on the nomination. VT GOP Executive Director Mike Bertrand told Bromage that there's at least one other person considering a Senate bid. Methinks Bertrand is hoping for a somewhat bigger fish; it never helps a party ticket to carry dead weight.  

After the jump: Stirring the Dartmouth pot, and heading a decidedly opaque nonprofit.

MacGovern now lives in Windsor, VT. He's run for State Senate twice and lost twice. His occupation: he runs the Hanover Institute, a nonprofit organization that is…

dedicated to educating Dartmouth College alumni about important events at Dartmouth.   We will focus primarily on those events that tend not to be covered in the official Dartmouth College and Dartmouth Alumni Office publications.

The Institute advocates a stronger voice for alumni in Dartmouth's governance. This has been a casus belli among conservative alums for quite a few years now; they believe that Dartmouth has gone soft and squishy in a number of ways. The Institute has filed two lawsuits against Dartmouth, in an effort to boost alumni representation on the Board of Trustees. A 2009 article in Dartmouth Alumni Magazine describes him as…

An activist who for years has railed against a College administration he views as undemocratic and secretive, MacGovern funds lawsuits against the College through an organization that is all but opaque, as he enigmatically declines to reveal just how much of his enormous war chest was donated from non-alumni sources.

That's putting it mildly. The Hanover Institute was founded in 2002, and its fundraising has mushroomed since then. In 2007, it raised over $800,000 and spent almost that much.   MacGovern is its sole employee and operator. The Institute's 2007 tax form shows a salary of $63,500 and other compensation of $31,750. The bulk of the Institute's spending, almost $702,000, was for "Publication of Newsletter. Inform Dartmouth Alumni of important elections at Dartmouth College."  

I've never run a publication, but that strikes me as a hell of a lot of money for a newsletter. Wonder how much MacGovern gets paid for editing, writing, and publishing it.  

As for his platform as a candidate for Senate, MacGovern appears to be focused entirely on the deficit — with one exception. He's also upset over the birth control mandate in President Obama's health care plan, which he calls "a full frontal assault on our religious liberty."  

To which I can only say, Mr. MacGovern, you have never experienced a full frontal assault on religious liberty.  

Okay, back to my prop bet. Bernie Sanders has a recent history of walloping no-hoper Republicans. In his initial bid for Senate six years ago, he won 65% of the vote against Rich Tarrant. In his last four elections for Congress, going backwards, he took 67.5% (against Greg Parke), 64.2% (against Bill Meub), 69.2% (Karen Kerin), and 63.4% (Mark Candon).  

So I'm setting the bar rather high. If you take the "over," you're betting that Bernie will come close to, or exceed, his highest vote total ever. But frankly, it's hard to see Mr. MacGovern as any better a candidate than those other guys. And unless Mike Bertrand pulls a mighty big rabbit out of his hat, it's hard to see Bernie getting much of a run this year. I suspect the VTGOP's real priorities are elsewhere.  

(Disclaimer: Betting-related information is for entertainment purposes only. We do not condone gambling, nor will we be a party to any such thing.)  

(Noonish, 3/9/12: Just added a note at the end of this diary, with information contrary to my paranoid fantasy about Shumlin and Illuzzi. All after the jump.)

Sometime in the past 24 hours, the Vince Illuzzi-for-Attorney General thing has gone from a rumor to an openly-floated Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade trial balloon. The Republican/Democratic (but mostly Republican) state senator from the NEK is basically telling anyone who will listen that he’s pondering a run for AG. Brattleboro Reformer:

Illuzzi said he would likely run as a Republican even as supporters urge him to run as an Independent to appeal to more voters in Democratic-leaning Vermont.

“You know, after 32 years, I think I have established a record as an Independent and would hope that people would look at my record and my ability to work with Democrats and Progressives, and not just the letter after my name,” he said.

Funny he should mention his 32 years of experience, since it opens the door to consideration of the big fat elephant in the room: his decisively checkered ethical past. Our Illuzzi Whitewash Media Count is now up to four: in four separate media entities, an Illuzzi candidacy has been bruited without mentioning that on at least three occasions, he’s been charged with violations of legal ethics. His law license was suspended for four years, and he came within a whisker of losing it permanently. (Best single source for this is a 2001 Boston Globe article written by one Jon Margolis, now of Vermont Digger.)

And somehow we’re not mentioning this because…?

I have an idea. Parable, and a paranoid fantasy, after the jump.  

Within the city limits of Montpelier, there’s an auto repair shop called IB’s Garage. Been there since the 1970s. Its owner is Paul Ibey. It’s the kind of place where people bring in older cars to keep them running and passing inspection.

And in front of his garage is a large, and very illegal, collection of junked vehicles.

Now, IB’s isn’t off on some side street or rural dead-end; it’s on Barre Street, a major east-west corridor. The junked cars are right alongside the roadway, in clear public view. Behind IB’s is the Winooski River. (Runoff, anyone?) Directly across the street is Sabin’s Pasture, an open undeveloped parcel of land beloved by many in the community.

There have been efforts to develop housing on the land — housing that would add significant property value to the city and create more living space a short distance from downtown, striking a small blow against suburban sprawl. Those efforts have met with stout resistance from people who want to “Save Sabin’s Pasture!” Somehow, these people don’t care that there’s a junkyard directly across the street from this sylvan paradise.

Paul Ibey insists it’s not a junkyard; he plans to get all those cars running again. But some of them have been there a long, long time. A plain reading of applicable law would clearly indicate that IB’s is in violation of multiple city and state laws and ordinances.

And there it sits. Not far from the river. And right across from a treasured community open space.

I’ve lived in Vermont for about six years. It’s a really nice place in a lot of ways, but there are a few things about it that I find rather annoying. One of them is Vermonters’ tendency to accept things that are familiar even if they’re obnoxious, and reject things that are unfamiliar even if they’re potentially beneficial.

And regarding his candidacy for AG, Vince Illuzzi is the IB’s Garage of state politics. A blight on the landscape that’s accepted simply because it’s familiar.

Thus endeth the parable. Now for my paranoid thought.

Last week, when he turned down a chance to endorse Bill Sorrell, Governor Shumlin made it pretty clear that he’d like to see someone else as Attorney General. There’s speculation of a Democratic primary challenge from someone like Speaker Shap Smith or Chittenden County State’s Attorney TJ Donovan. But what if Vince Illuzzi winds up running as an independent? The Republicans would almost certainly stay out of the race; they’ve been very Illuzzi-friendly of late.

Would Shumlin endorse an independent Illuzzi for AG over a Democratic incumbent?* Call me crazy, but I think it’s possible. The Governor is fond of the occasional “kicking the hippies” move — taking a center-right stance to prove his moderate bona fides. Endorsing one Republican — especially if he runs without the “Republican” label — would be a classic Shumlin move.

And ignoring Illuzzi’s troubled ethical past would be a classic Vermont move.

*Addendum: I’ve been told by a solid source that there’s no way Shumlin would endorse Illuzzi. I have no reason to doubt that; I posted the idea as a paranoid fantasy, and if that’s all it was, I’m glad. I don’t mind being wrong. Hope I don’t make a habit of it.

The real aim of Shumlin’s conspicuous non-endorsement of Sorrell, I’m told, is to give potential Democratic challengers some subtle encouragement to challenge Sorrell. And one other name to add to the list of potential challengers: Windsor County State’s Attorney Bobby Sand.

Some confirmation of our recent spate of Republican-ticket rumor-mongering comes from “Blurt,” the staff blog at Seven Days. Reporter Paul Heintz quotes State Sen. Vince Illuzzi as saying the odds are 75% that he’ll run for Attorney General as a Republican, against Democrat Bill Sorrell. (Assuming Sorrell is the nominee; see the same gathering of rumors.

Heintz offers a couple Illuzzi quotes on why Sorrell might be vulnerable and why he’d be a better choice. Nowhere in the (admittedly brief) item does Heintz recount Illuzzi’s decidedly checkered history with legal ethics.

Brief reminder: Three times during his career as a lawyer, Illuzzi has been charged with ethical violations. For four years in the 1990s, his law license was suspended. (Details here.) That would seem to be an important bit of information concerning a prospective holder of Vermont’s highest legal position.

It’s the second time this week that Illuzzi’s possible candidacy has been mentioned in the media. The first was on WDEV’s Mark Johnson Show, in a conversation between Mark and Vermont Pundit Laureate Eric Davis. They tossed around an Illuzzi bid without mentioning his past run-ins with his own profession.

I realize he isn’t the nominee yet, and hasn’t even formally entered the race. But I’d think that his past ought to be the very first thing that’s brought up. And it ought to be brought up and explored thoroughly before Illuzzi gets anywhere near the nomination.