Religious Right Vent Fury At Obama

Handsome Bob

Amanda Simpson, who was named by President Obama to be senior technical adviser for the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security, has worked in the field for over 30 years. But prominent figures on the religious right are claiming that she was picked only as part of some transsexual agenda.

"Is there going to be a transgender quota now in the Obama administration?" asked Peter LaBarbera, president of the anti-gay group Americans for Truth. "How far does this politics of gay and transgender activism go? Clearly this is an administration that is pandering to the gay lobby."

"Simpson's nomination was forwarded through to President Obama by a gay activist group, making it appear that this appointment of a male-to-female 'transgender' activist to a high level Commerce Department position to be payback to his far-left base for their political support," a spokeswoman for Focus on the Family said in statement.

Matt Barber, associate dean at Jerry Fallwell's Liberty University, said the appointment "boggles the mind" and said that while African-Americans might deserve special treatment, transgender people don't.

"This isn't like appointing an African-American in order to try to provide diversity and right some kind of discriminatory wrong," he said. "This is about political correctness."

Of course, as Steven Benen points out, none of these angry conservatives even consider that Simpson was simply the best candidate for the job.

Simpson herself anticipated this reaction: "[There will be] questions like: Is this a token? Are you here to do a job or just to fill a quota or appease other people? In that regard it makes it a bit more difficult," she said. "I'm sure I will have to do and intend to do a far superior job than any other person. But I'm sure I will always be second-guessed."

David Brody at the Christian Broadcasting Network also predicted a right-wing backlash and argued that the right thing to do would be to not hire transsexuals, for that reason: "The transgender thing doesn't play well with millions of conservative Evangelicals. ... I understand President Obama won't be after die hard conservative Evangelicals in 2012 but let's remember that moves like this don't play well with the million of conservative Independent voters and Catholics who will be up for grabs again in 2012 as well."

Transgender rights supporters, however, are cheered that Obama didn't let fear of bigotry dictate his choice. "If you look at the job she's taking and at her résumé, this is not a quota appointee," Mara Keisling, of the National Center for Transgender Equality, told the New York Post. "She's unquestionably qualified for the job. The story is . . . not that [Obama] appointed one of us but that finally we have an administration for which that's not a deal breaker."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/05/transgender-appointee-ama_n_412103.html

It's a bit easy to say that it was a token appointment but I think Obama wouldn't carelessly rush into a decision that will cost him significant voters. So that leaves only one possible reason as to why Amanda Simpson was hired; she was the best person for the job.

I like the appointment because it was a brave decision by Obama, not because he threw "the gay/transgendered community a bone but because he made a decision that could well cost him votes. He wasn't playing politics in this appointment, he simply had what was best for the department's interests in mind. He hired what he felt was the best regardless of the backlash, that says to me that America finally have a true leader in charge.

kev9100

LZ5by5 wrote: »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/05/transgender-appointee-ama_n_412103.html

It's a bit easy to say that it was a token appointment but I think Obama wouldn't carelessly rush into a decision that will cost him significant voters.

Its a good appointment as she is clearly qualified for the job but I`m not sure how it will cost him any votes. You would assume the people who think this appointment is so wrong would never vote for Obama in the first place, no?

Lockstep

Surely the same could be said of John Ashcroft?
Although appointed as a sop to the religious right rather than the transexual left.

sceptre

What's a transsexual agenda? Does it mean there's going to be a second one hired or an army of them?

Or is the objection formed on some sort of anti-transsexual agenda (which presumably, being the opposite, would like the number hired to be zero or less)?

So Americans For Truth, checking their webpage, are a group that hate the gays?

Oh, isn't that a lot of questions? Any idea on how many I need an answer to?

Publicity oxygen is limited, give it to someone else with an actual complaint (that's really aimed at the Huffington Post I think).

Overheal

It's a bit easy to say that it was a token appointment but I think Obama wouldn't carelessly rush into a decision that will cost him significant voters. So that leaves only one possible reason as to why Amanda Simpson was hired; she was the best person for the job.

She may have been a nominal candidate. I dunno. I dont scrutinize the Administration's picks. Sometimes I hear about black guy this, latino judge that, and sometimes (especially in the media) it does sound like these are token appointments, but I can hardly make that claim myself. Im sure he's appointed dozens of people personally. Is he nominating in an Equal Opportunity ratio or something?

Trouser_Press

LZ5by5 wrote: »

he made a decision that could well cost him votes.

The only people wetting their pants over this appointment (a well earned one too, judging by what I've read) are right-wing bible-bashing loopers.....and they wouldn't vote Obama even if a gun was held to their heads.

So, no, this hasn't "cost him votes".

Overheal

Maybe not, but a growing string of broken promises will ensure he never gets a second term.

The C-Span Lie. Oh yes. He lied.

"You Lie!"

The head of C-SPAN has implored Congress to open up the last leg of health care reform negotiations to the public, as top Democrats lay plans to hash out the final product among themselves.

C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb wrote to leaders in the House and Senate Dec. 30 urging them to open "all important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings," to televised coverage on his network.

"The C-SPAN networks will commit the necessary resources to covering all of the sessions LIVE and in their entirety," he wrote.

In a Tuesday afternoon press conference on health legislation negotiations, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appeared to object to the premise behind the request.

"There has never been a more open process for any legislation in anyone who’s served here’s experience," she said.

However, Republican leaders sided with C-SPAN's calls for transparency.

"As House Republican leader, I can confidently state that all House Republicans strongly endorse your proposal and stand ready to work with you to make it a reality," Minority Leader John Boehner wrote in response to the letter. "Hard-working families won't stand for having the future of their health care decided behind closed doors. These secret deliberations are a breeding ground for more of the kickbacks, shady deals and special-interest provisions that have become business as usual in Washington."

Democratic leaders could bypass the traditional conference committee process, in which lawmakers from both parties and chambers meet to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of a bill. Top Democrats in the House, Senate and White House were meeting Tuesday evening to figure out the final product in three-way talks before sending it back to both chambers for a final vote.

"We don't even know yet whether there's going to be a conference," Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen said responding to a question about the C-SPAN request. "It's not clear whether or not that's going to happen yet."

This format would seem ideal for closed-door meetings, which congressional Democrats have used many times to figure out sensitive provisions in the health care bill -- though President Obama pledged during the campaign to open up health care talks to C-SPAN's cameras.

"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are," Obama said at a debate against Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles on Jan. 31, 2008.

Asked about the request to Congress, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he hadn't seen the letter.

"I know the president is going to begin discussions today on health care to iron out differences between the House and Senate bills," he said.

Lamb urged Congress in his letter to fling open the doors in the final stretch of the negotiations.

"President Obama, Senate and House leaders, many of your rank-and-file members, and the nation's editorial pages have all talked about the value of transparent discussions on reforming the nation's health care system," he wrote. "Now that the process moves to the critical stage of reconciliation between the chambers, we respectfully request that you allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American."

Lamb said his network would use "the latest technology" to be "as unobtrusive as possible" during the talks.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/05/c-span-challenges-congress-open-health-care-talks-tv-coverage/

Even Stewart can't help but lampoon Obama about the CSPAN thing as well as several other promises, such as troop withdrawal, tax breaks and the Guantanamo Closure (video tomorrow) Just 2 weeks left to fill that promise..

Overheal

This will all be televised on CSPAN

Nick_oliveri

^^Currently not available in mah country.

LZ5by5 wrote: »

that says to me that America finally have a true leader in charge.

Fair enough, Im all for equal rights, whoever the person may be, but could you PM me or something and quantify that statement, because I am of the impression that hes just another talking head with speech writers and pre-selected questions and questioners, just like the last idiot.

And even for him or his people to consider what voting base might opt out of voting for him over this issue is insane, I thought democracy was about leading a country and making changes for the better, not pandering to a select group of potential voters for a second term, no matter how large the group may be..

Jerry Fallwell's Liberty University, said the appointment "boggles the mind" and said that while African-Americans might deserve special treatment, transgender people don't.

Disgusting comment.

Handsome Bob

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Fair enough, Im all for equal rights, whoever the person may be, but could you PM me or something and quantify that statement, because I am of the impression that hes just another talking head with speech writers and pre-selected questions and questioners, just like the last idiot.

And even for him or his people to consider what voting base might opt out of voting for him over this issue is insane, I thought democracy was about leading a country and making changes for the better, not pandering to a select group of potential voters for a second term, no matter how large the group may be..

What I stated was not meant to be seen as PC, if that's the impression you got then I apologise. What I meant was, what does Obama have to gain "politically" from this appointment?

As the article stated, it could cost him independent votes. In regards to "pandering to a select group", I honestly don't think Obama would have needed that much to ensure the gay/transgender vote. If Obama did the minimum for this community over his tenure, they'd still vote for him. Why? Because they know the alternative to the Democrats/Obama, and they won't want to go back there.

Simply put, "politically", Obama had nothing to gain. This appointment could well cost him some votes in certain areas, whereas in the gay/transgender community they would have still voted for him regardless of this appointment.

Thus, for me, Barack Obama is not playing politics because if anything, it's an appointment that will lose, rather than gain, votes. That only leaves one logical conclusion; he made this appointment based on someone he felt was the best person for the job.

Nick_oliveri

LZ5by5 wrote: »

What I stated was not meant to be seen as PC, if that's the impression you got then I apologise. What I meant was, what does Obama have to gain "politically" from this appointment?

I didn't get that impression, I was just stating it as a whole for everyone to think about, it wasn't directed at anyone in particular.

As the article stated, it could cost him independent votes. In regards to "pandering to a select group", I honestly don't think Obama would have needed that much to ensure the gay/transgender vote. If Obama did the minimum for this community over his tenure, they'd still vote for him. Why? Because they know the alternative to the Democrats/Obama, and they won't want to go back there.

What I meant was, that people shouldn't think of any policy in terms of pandering to a select group for second term votes or popularity censuses, and in the bit you quoted, I was referring to Christian or evangelical pandering, I am well aware of how minuscule a group the transgenders are, thats why Jerry Fallwell will get away with his disgusting comment from that article.

Thus, for me, Barack Obama is not playing politics because if anything, it's an appointment that will lose, rather than gain, votes. That only leaves one logical conclusion; he made this appointment based on someone he felt was the best person for the job.

Fair enough, good point. I agree.

kev9100

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Thus, for me, Barack Obama is not playing politics because if anything, it's an appointment that will lose, rather than gain, votes. That only leaves one logical conclusion; he made this appointment based on someone he felt was the best person for the job.

I agree he picked the best person for the job, but I still dont see how it will cost him votes. The Left will love the appointment, the Right already hate him and Independents aren`t intrested in this kind of stuff.

Manic Moran

Independents aren`t intrested in this kind of stuff.

Depends on the rationale behind the appointment. If it was 'best person for the job', then no, we don't care. If it was a 'token/affirmative-action' type appointment, then we'll care one way or the other.

NTM

Joycey

Overheal wrote: »

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/05/c-span-challenges-congress-open-health-care-talks-tv-coverage/


"As House Republican leader, I can confidently state that all House Republicans strongly endorse your proposal and stand ready to work with you to make it a reality," Minority Leader John Boehner wrote in response to the letter. "Hard-working families won't stand for having the future of their health care decided behind closed doors. These secret deliberations are a breeding ground for more of the kickbacks, shady deals and special-interest provisions that have become business as usual in Washington."

Roflpops. I dont believe anything I read on Fox news. And the fact that a republican is saying this makes me further disbelieve it. Im not defending Obama or anything, hes nothing like an ideal canditate, but what good would voting him out for a republican do if you want troops out, guantanamo closed etc?

Overheal

Joycey wrote: »

Roflpops. I dont believe anything I read on Fox news. And the fact that a republican is saying this makes me further disbelieve it. Im not defending Obama or anything, hes nothing like an ideal canditate, but what good would voting him out for a republican do if you want troops out, guantanamo closed etc?

I didnt read the comment you pulled, from John Boehner. Nor do I care to lend weight to it.

But mind you, that doesnt make the story a Lie: CSPAN has been barred by the White House from recording or televising the debates that Candidate Obama at least as many as 8 times on National Television promised would be. That, is a direct Hypocrisy. We're not talking about sensitive material here or National Security. I can see no reason (nor has he offered any) as to why he reneged on his pledge. Unlike say, his ordering of more troops into the Middle East vs. his campaign promise to Withdraw: at least there you can imagine theres more important things going on that Candidate Obama was unaware of before he took the nomination and began getting Security Briefings.

Google News Search: "CSPAN"

Trouser_Press

kev9100 wrote: »

I agree he picked the best person for the job, but I still dont see how it will cost him votes. The Left will love the appointment, the Right already hate him and Independents aren`t intrested in this kind of stuff.

Spot on.