If they are going to attack the man, they should at least use the right material.Earlier this week, Maclean's magazine reported that "NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair was in discussions in 2007 to join the Conservative party as a senior adviser to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, discussions that several sources... say was the first step in securing Mulcair to run as a Conservative candidate in 2008."The report alleges the negotiations "broke down over money," with a source quoted as saying Mulcair "told me he wanted $300,000 a year and that was his bottom line and, basically, I got back to him, saying I couldn't go higher than $180,000, and I never heard back from him ever again. Two or three months later, he made the jump to the NDP."Mulcair admits the Tories asked him to be an environmental adviser, but says he declined the offer because of the Conservatives' position on the Kyoto accord. He denies that money played any role in his decision.There are a number of problems with the Maclean's report, starting with the fact it isn't news. Reports about the Harper government's unsuccessful attempts to lure Mulcair into the Tories' tent emerged in 2007 and resurfaced in 2012, when he sought the NDP leadership.Second, the allegation his decision was financially motivated is implausible. After turning down the Tories' offer of $180,000 per year, he chose to run for Parliament -- a job that paid $40,000 less.Third, his explanation for declining the offer rings true. Given his long-standing, public support for the Kyoto accord, becoming the environmental point man for a government so vehemently opposed to that agreement would have necessitated an embarrassing about-face. It would have destroyed his credibility and exposed him to lasting ridicule.The motive for the attack against Mulcair is obvious -- his New Democrats have considerable momentum in the polls and are currently projected to win the federal election in October -- but it fails because it does not square with the evidence. It only makes him appear to be the victim of an inept smear job.It's a puzzling blunder by his rivals, made all the more mystifying by the abundance of compelling issues on which Mulcair and his party could be more effectively challenged. One example is whether a Mulcair government would take Canada out of NATO, in accordance with long-standing NDP policy. Another is Mulcair's truth-bending on the NDP's track record as fiscal managers.In a recent speech to the Economic Club of Canada, he attempted to portray his party as a fiscally responsible government-in-waiting. He alluded to Gary Doer as one of several NDP premiers who balanced budgets and claimed "the federal department of finance's own reports show that NDP governments are the best at balancing the books when in office."The speech echoed assertions he made in January 2013, when he claimed that "the NDP's very proud of its track record of prudent public administration in the five provinces and in the territories where it has been in power," and that "Greg Selinger's got a lot to show to other provinces and to the federal government about creating jobs and putting fiscal effort where it can produce the best results."Later that year, while campaigning in the Brandon-Souris byelection, he told reporters the 2013 PST hike was the "right choice" for Manitoba, and a federal NDP government under his leadership would follow the fiscal-management example set by the Selinger government.If those comments don't cause Canadians to chuckle, they should cause them to worry.That's because Manitoba's debt has increased dramatically during the past 15 years of NDP government, while the quality of public services, most notably health care, education and child welfare, has declined precipitously. Unable to extricate itself from cascading deficits through prudent management, the Selinger government now plans to make future deficits disappear by changing its accounting rules.Is that the example Mulcair would follow? Isn't that the question his opponents should be asking?As the possibility of an NDP government in Ottawa becomes more realistic, the party and its leader will be subjected to a greater level of scrutiny. With legitimate questions still needing to be asked, gossip that fails to pass the smell test should not be part of that exercise.Deveryn Ross is a political commentator living in Brandon. His columns regularly appear in the Winnipeg Free Press, Westman Journal and other Western Canadian [email protected]          Twitter: @deverynross