Does Massachusetts Want an Abusive Prosecutor as Their Senator?

American Thinker is not convinced that Martha Coakley's record as a prosecutor will sit well with the voters of Massachusetts:

I have been watching the Massachusetts Senate race with interest. There is a lot more going on there than a backlash against the Democrats in Washington on health care, or even Coakley's sense of entitlement to the "Kennedy seat." Close elections ultimately tend to be decided by a segment of voters who rely on their gut instincts about the two people in the running, not the issues. I suspect that this will be especially true next Tuesday because voters know that if Coakley is elected, she will likely be their senator for life.

I write this because there seems to be something about Martha -- something that is making a segment of Massachusetts voters who normally vote Democrat pause to consider whether that is such a good idea. My wariness does not come from Coakley's stance on health care, the war on terror, her sense of divine entitlement, or even her howler that having a sister who lives abroad constitutes foreign policy experience. It is based on Coakley's record as a prosecutor in Middlesex county, first as a staff attorney and later as the elected District Attorney.

It has been my experience that voters who don't blink at the prospect of pulling the lever for a famously corrupt politician often show more reluctance when it comes to rewarding arbitrary or abusive prosecutors with higher office. I suspect this is because while voters often have problems visualizing how they are personally injured by politicians on the take, they have no problem imagining themselves as the victim of a false accusation. It is noteworthy that throughout this campaign, the Boston Globe has run articles about the more controversial moves in Coakley's prosecutorial career. These cases are not news to the voters. They were all raised by her Republican opponent in her 2006 race for Attorney General. That they are still of interest suggests deep and lingering doubts not about Coakley's politics, but about her character and her judgment. Voters, after all, also tend to be a lot more careful about the type of people they elect to be governors and U.S. senators than they are about whom they elect to offices such as Attorney General or Secretary of State. Scott Brown may have underscored this uneasiness in the debate with his sharp retort in one exchange that he was not a defendant in her courtroom.

Writer Rosslyn Smith goes on to detail some of the cases that should give Bay State voters pause as their choose their next Senator. You can read the rest of it here.

Coakley's campaign seems to be imploding during the final days of the campaign, but that's no guarantee she won't get elected in a state with a 3-1 Democrat voter registration advantage.