Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Obama’s choice of gay rights foe for Cabinet slammed by activist

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Not to mention, Judd TWICE voted to dismantle and do away with the Commerce Department, the very Department he has now been appointed to lead.

    To add insult to injury, he got to make a deal with the NH Governor to replace his Senate seat with a Republican. The very kind of quid pro quo that got Rod Blegojevich IMPEACHED as Governor of Illinois.

    For the life of me I can’t figure out what Obama’s thinking with this moronic pick.

    One thing has been made PERFECTLY clear over the last few weeks however; Obama doesn’t give one rat’s ass about the gay community that worked so hard to get him elected, even to the point of taking away time, talent and treasure from fighting anti-gay initiatives in various states.

  2. Look, I don’t like the idea myself, but this is COMMERCE SECRETARY. This guy was much more harmful to the gay community as a Senator, no? No matter who replaces him, it will be someone who was not previously elected to the position, and may have less of a chance of holding the seat against a democratic challenger in the next election (I think I read that seat is up in 2010, but I’m not sure). Let’s pick our battles here.

  3. Obama is a politician. In the same way that nu-Labour was better than the sleazy Tories, so Obama is better than Bush. He will look to the best way to serve HIMSELF and his legacy, and if he can help he will, if it costs too much he won’t.

    We must learn to play the game of realpolitik, and NEVER let them think that we look on them as the only option

  4. Allison T 7 Feb 2009, 1:38am

    I was going to make a comment, but then I saw that John K already said it. He’s out of the Senate; we should be happy!

  5. I’d just like to say, I gritted my teeth with Rick Warren as the inaugural preacher, I made allowances for the fact that Gene Robinson’s speech wasn’t broadcast, but there’s only so many get out of jail free cards I’m prepared to allow a president who claims to be concerned over LGBT rights.
    Judd Gregg represents the latest slap in the face and Obama has been in office less than a month. He seriously needs to ask himself whether or not he wants the pink vote at the next election. Realpolitic or not, you can’t keep pandering to the right wing fundamentalists at our expense. It’s time he started taking gay rights seriously…

  6. The point that Todd is no longer a Senator and therefore doesn’t have that kind of power any more is well made. However, to then say he’s just a Commerce Secretary and so isn’t important is a cop-out. He’s a Cabinet-level post and will influence a range of policies that will extend beyond his portfolio. Taken in aggregate, Obama’s picks for Cabinet posts are a real disappointment because his ‘big tent’ policy will merely maintain the status quo. There’s no indication that he actually wants progression in civil rights issues. The most interesting ‘gay’ issue at the moment – and the one that will probably signal which way in which an Obama administration will handle gay rights – is the recognition of same-sex partner rights in the State Department. If that fails, one can expect a lot of waffle and no positive action from Obama.
    The whole way Obama has appointed his Cabinet is an indication of how he’ll exercise one of the great Presidential powers: appointment to the Supreme Court. On current form, Obama doesn’t appear to want to rock the boat one way or another. So,if there are no champions of civil rights at a policy level, I can’t see him appointing anyone progressive at a judicial level. All the indicators are that if gays and lesbians want equality in the US, it’s going to be a long, hard slog influencing the legislators without benefit of allies anywhere else in the political system.

  7. oops, Gregg, not Todd. Apologies.

  8. as has been said this has to be looked at in the borader scale. Obama is president of the whole country. Rick Warren is probably the least worst option in terms of mega religous people.

    With Judd out of the senate, the DEMOCRATIC governor of New Hampshire will pick a senate replacement, giving…what was that, yes! the 60 Democratic votes that will help the president repeal DOMA, DADT and do all the other things we need done.

  9. The fact is that if you eliminated every US politician whose voting record on gay issues mirrored Gregg’s, you wouldn’t be able to fill the entire Cabinet. This is a non-issue. Let’s find something worth getting upset about rather than wasting energy on this.

  10. You can’t have all pro gay people in the governemnt. It won’t work. We need difference view of the population into the government. Or are they suggesting send all Anti-Gay human being to the their death like the Narzi did to our LGBT brother and sister in WWII?? Grow up people.
    Forcing us to take the bible view is the Taliban Ways. However, forcing other to take our LGBT Ways wasn’t it also Taliban Ways?

  11. The idea that all Democrats are for the repeal of DOMA and DADT is ridiculous. There are more than enough anti-gay Democrats in positions of power, so the idea that the 60 mark in the Senate will mean progression on gay/lesbian/transgender rights is more optimistic rather than automatic. And on the idea of Obama’s big tent meaning that he has to invite anti-gay people to his Cabinet, that’s fair enough. But wouldn’t that same philosophy mean that he should also a gay person? Of course, gays and lesbians in the US will only get the rights they’re prepared to fight for. The latino community groupings demanded some kind of reciprocity from Obama and have received Cabinet positions, for example. There seems to be an attitude prevalent in some areas of the US gay ‘community’ that they don’t have to do much and somehow the politicians will do the right thing. It strikes me as a complacent approach to politics, but if it works for you, go for it.

  12. @Lawrence:

    by your argument, he should have a white supremicist in cabinet to offer the alternative view.

    Seriously, you DON’T need people who disagree with the fundamentals of your policies just to be inclusive. Unless certain of your policies are negotiable into extinction…

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all