The Boston Globe took a really strange position in its endorsements this year when it endorsed Patricia Saint Aubin in her race against the incumbent State Auditor, Suzanne Bump. Political prognosticators were perplexed by the endorsement, the only Republican state-wide candidate thus far endorsed by the Globe. After all, the Globe had repeatedly praised Auditor Bump for the reforms that she had put in place, as well as the significant audits that her office has released. Is this just the Globe pretending to be a balanced newspaper by endorsing one Republican, or is it a case of a sloppy editorial board?
For example, Saint Aubin’s primary credentials are that she received a degree in accounting from Providence College, and that she worked as a professional auditor for Shawmut Bank for 4 years. But Saint Aubin has publicly stated, on several occasions, that she received that degree back in 1980, and that her 4-year stint as an auditor in the private sector apparently ended in 1984. I am not old enough to remember what the world was like in 1984, but even I know that much has changed since then. We didn’t even have personal computers back then. Has Saint Aubin, who hasn’t worked as an auditor in over 30 years, kept up with the profession? How has the profession changed since then and what has Saint Aubin done to stay on top of the changes in her profession? Were these questions that the Globe editorial board bothered to ask Saint Aubin before giving her their endorsement?
Most professions have changed dramatically since 1984, except maybe the Globe’s editorial board. All of the information in this post comes from a Google search, which, I would think, the Globe editors might have done before promoting Saint Aubin’s candidacy. Apparently, those editors, who idealize Saint Aubin’s 30-year old experience when every audit was completely paper-based, don’t care because they themselves are so stuck in the past that they can’t even do a simple Google search.
And let’s be serious, there are questions about Saint Aubin’s knowledge about how our government works. For example, in an interview with WCVB-TV, Saint Aubin stated that she was voting Yes on the casino question, No. 3, because she wanted local communities to have a political say on whether there should be a casino in their community. (Actual quote from WCVB interview – “Let the local towns vote in if they want casinos or not.” Link: http://www.wcvb.com/politics/patricia-saint-aubin-on-casino-ballot-question/29228294.) Doesn’t Saint Aubin understand that local referenda are already a part of the law?
And at a forum by the Concord League of Women Voters, Saint Aubin told us that her 90-year-old mother, who was attending the forum, was benefiting from Medicaid. One wonders whether that was accurate – was he mother on a field trip from a nursing home? Or did Saint Aubin mix up Medicaid and Medicare? Does Saint Aubin even know the difference? (Link: http://vp.telvue.com/player?autostart=true&height=240&id=T00341&noplaylistskin=true&video=213786&width=320)
And what about Saint Aubin’s political views. I found a website – isidewith.com – that have some very interesting information about her views (Link: http://www.isidewith.com/massachusetts-voter-guide/51/46633174:654850765.) Do you know, according to that site, that Saint Aubin opposes a woman’s right to choose, same sex marriage, and government funding of stem cell research? Did you know that she opposes any increase in the Federal debt ceiling, doesn’t believe that global warming is a threat to the environment, thinks the U.S. should leave the United Nations, wants the U.S. to overthrow the government in the Sudan, opposes an increase in the minimum wage, wants to raise the Social Security retirement age, and wants to dismantle the Medicare program? Does this sound like a serious candidate for political office in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, or like another hack Tea Partier?
Further, she has also lied on at least of her OCPF reports to hide the identities of her far-right contributors. Chanel Prunier, the Executive Director of the anti-gay Coalition for Marriage and Family, has her occupation listed as a “consultant”, with no employer.
But this isn’t really a critique of Patricia Saint Aubin and how qualified or unqualified she is for the position that she seeks, but about our region’s most prominent newspaper, and how that paper, which influences so many Massachusetts voters, chose to endorse this person for a critical constitutional office? Most people now know what a huge error John McCain made when he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008 without properly vetting her — has the Globe made the same kind of mistake here in 2014 in endorsing Saint Aubin without seriously questioning her credentials?
Please share widely!
Peter Porcupine says
Chanel Prunier is no longer the Executive Director there. She is now working at Legacy One Consulting as a … consultant.
Please apologize for calling her a liar on OCPF reports. That is a serious accusation. It’s not like she’s Martha Coakley.
long2024 says
See her Linkedin. She may have taken another job on top of the Coalition for Marriage, but she’s still there, unless you’re calling her a liar.
SomervilleTom says
A long piece providing a seemingly accurate description of a far-right extremist, climate change denier, and tea partier, and you comment on one line about one contributor? The “serious accusation” is contained in the SIX paragraphs that you chose to ignore.
Whether Chanel Prunier (whoever she is) is a “Consultant” or still serves as the ED of Coalition for Marriage and Family, Ms. Prunier is still a far-right contributor. Even if Ms. Prunier is only “moderate right” (anti-gay, anti-government, willing to destroy the US credit rating, climate change denier, but perhaps not insisting on leaving the UN?), Patricia Saint Aubin is still an extremist who should not be allowed near any public office.
The point of this diary is that this woman is a walking DISASTER, and the Globe has endorsed her anyway.
Peter Porcupine says
She is also the GOP National Committee woman for MA.
And I sought to correct a snarky error. Look at her LinkedIn? Really? Going to DC and other states doesn’t leave much time for a daily admin job, but if anyone has the energy to do so it would be her.
SomervilleTom says
Rather than contribute to porcupine’s attempt to distract from the story, I’ve commented here.
This candidate appears to be a DISASTER. If even half of the assertions in the thread-starter are true, then this candidate is an embarrassment to Massachusetts, to the Massachusetts GOP, and to the Boston Globe.
In endorsing this right-wing fanatic, the Globe continues its shameful plunge into Herald-hood. The Massachusetts GOP once again demonstrates, in nominating this embarrassment, precisely WHY such a vanishingly-small number of Massachusetts voters identify with it.
Who in their right minds can possibly conclude that a person who espouses the views of this candidate should have ANY role in Massachusetts governance?