http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/01/14/browns_glossy_veneer_conceals_misleading_campaign/

In 2005, Brown sponsored a legislative amendment that would have allowed medical personnel to deny emergency contraception to rape victims if it ?conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief.?? The amendment didn?t pass, but Brown owned it. It was attached to a bill that he ultimately voted for, which required emergency rooms to provide contraceptives to rape victims.

Coakley has a record that should matter to voters. She cracked down on Wall Street. She won hundreds of millions of dollars for taxpayers by taking on Big Dig contractors. She prosecuted Neil Entwistle, who murdered his wife and baby, and ex-priest Paul Shanley for child molestation.

She has run a dull Senate campaign, and she doesn?t talk in quotable sound bites. But if voters are truly tired of ?politics as usual,?? why choose artifice over a candidate who isn?t trying to be anything but herself?

She represents change, too. Coakley would make history as the first female senator from Massachusetts.

Brown represents a different kind of change. He wants voters to forget what he stood for in the past and accept him for the positions he now embraces.

Believing him is a risky choice for Massachusetts.

Joan Vennochi can be reached at vennochi@globe.com

I wonder what Joan Vennochi thinks of that Amirault case?

http://www.redstate.com/izoneguy/2010/01/12/involvement-in-amirault-case-makes-martha-coakley-unfit-to-replace-ted-kennedy-as-senator/

I wonder what Joan makes of these other things in Coakley’s past:

http://www.leftbankofthecharles.com/2009/11/seven-reasons-martha-coakley-will-never.html

She won hundreds of millions of dollars for taxpayers by taking on Big Dig contractors.

The Big Dig tunnel collapse, where Martha Coakley pursued criminal charges as leverage to win a large civil settlement against one of the small firms involved, but not against the large firms. I thought that was unethical, and not just on grounds of unequal treatment. Either the defendant is guilty and should not be allowed to buy out of the criminal charges, or the defendant is innocent, and the criminal charges should not be used to extort a higher monetary settlement.