Bruce Panders to Feminasties

Bruce Lunsford has become a cliche of Old School Liberalism. First he coddled the labor unions -- the only group that will give him any money to speak of. And now he is courting the feminists, in a manner that demeans women and the office of U.S. Senate he seeks.

From Page One, we learn that Bruce will "will unveil his plan for a Kentucky Women’s Bill of Rights on September 25 in Lexington. Carrick House, 312 N. Limestone, 7:00 P.M." This might be worth attending, just for the humor value.

After all, when else do we get to see a candidate with such a weak grasp of basic civics that he thinks that a U.S. Senator can dictate a "bill of rights" for a state? His failure to comprehend basic concepts of federalism would flunk the social studies portion of the CATS test for fifth graders.

But that's just the mechanics of Bruce's agenda. He is wrong on the merits, as well. The web site that is promoting Bruce's feminist outreach, Kentucky Women: Power, Passion and Politics, promises that Bruce's "unveiling" of his new "bill of rights" will be "absolutely breathtaking." Be still, my heart.

The so-called "Lunsford '08 KY Women's Outreach Program" expects Bruce to do their bidding on such issues as the "Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program (DBE); a critical program which gives 10 percent of all federally financed contracts to women and minority-owned companies." The feminists are enraged that Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell does not support the program.

The DBE is a fancy form of welfare that should be repealed. It rests upon that central fallacy of feminism that mischaracterizes women as victims. Then it seeks to reward and perpetuate their victimization by bestowing upon them a chunk of the taxpayers' money.

Any businesswoman worth her salt would be insulted to accept this handout, which assumes that she cannot make it without Big Government intervening on her behalf. And any woman-owned business that needs to be propped up by a government subsidy does not deserve to stay in business.

And then there is the all-defining issue for feminists: abortion. Bruce Lunsford told the Courier-Journal last May that he's for it -- says he'll do all he can to keep it legal. Given Lunsford's desire to expand the federal government's role in the health insurance industry, feminists undoubtedly hope that Lunsford would back using tax dollars to pay for abortions. Lunsford's pro-abortion position also means that he would vote to confirm activist judges of the sort who created the Roe v. Wade "right to privacy" out of whole cloth.

McConnell, in contrast, won the endorsement by Right to Life. He also voted to confirm Justice Samual Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts.

Lunsford may not lean as far left as many in his party. Indeed, the Demo-blogs were outraged that he won the nomination, because he is not "progressive" enough. But make no mistake: he favors abortion and the activist judges who gave us that tragedy. McConnell has defended the sanctity of life and judicial restraint for years.

And McConnell understands that it demeans women -- a majority of the population -- to carve out special subsidies that do nothing more than discriminate against men. And unlike Lunsford, McConnell has read and understands the Constitution.