Columnists who have to find something to write about and forgo logic in return for an effortless 500 words need to be given a vacation or something. The Boston Herald’s Holly Robichaud is one such columnist.

As if we needed to be forewarned about the lack of seriousness within this particular column, her first attack focuses an all too often point of focus for some conservatives (you know who you are) – the lady’s name. Instead of Elizabeth, it is innocently demeaning and tongue-in-cheek to refer to the contender as if he/she was a child. How clever. Never let substance get in the way literally making fun of the name of a candidate for high office.

In fact, the actual substance of the article is so nonsensical that it is reminiscent of Canian (i.e., Herman Cain) logic. See, Democratic candidate for US Senate Elizabeth Warren is challenging Republican US Senator Scott Brown primarily by presenting herself a warrior that will stand up to wall street. She infamously claimed that she was part of the intellectual backbone of the OWS movement, which is actually a relatively permissible claim.

But! Robichaud has discovered something treacherous!

“Lizzy is a member of the 1%…The only thing that could make her a more hypocritical class warrior is if she anchored a yacht in Rhode Island. There is nothing wrong with being financially well-off. The problem is that Lizzy wants everyone in the 1 percent to feel guilty about their success while she lands another six-figure part-time gig.”

According to Robichaud this makes Warren philosophically incoherent. That is, one cannot be a member of the 1% while also supporting tax raises, etc. on the 1%.

To whom does this ring logical? I wonder if she dared criticize Warren Buffet when he asserted that the government coddled billionaires such as himself. Robichaud seems to have a problem with someone who supports policies which they actually believe are in the interest of the greater good rather than potentially personally expedient. Of course, it generally lends more credibility to a proponent of a position when they have no self interest attached to that position. But that does not jive jibe with the “class warfare” line that has been so recklessly thrown about.

The problem with Robichaud’s analysis is that it is incorrect.