It is my opinion that people were already out to get her and that is why she acted so defensively and perhaps dishonestly in some interviews. I don't want to say that all lobbyists lie, but that is the stereotype. I also think that her view of the Republican Party is a very narrow and specific view. She is a Washington insider and the crowd she hangs round with tend to care more about lowering taxes for the rich (themselves) than they care do for religion/secular issues.
Perhaps. My problem with it all, nonetheless, is that the early interviews with Edwina Rogers have not made a good impression. I don't care all that much about her past activities, as long as I can be convinced that she now has the right priorities for the Secular Coalition for America.
I see no reason at the moment to doubt that she has the technical skills as a manager, lobbyist, etc. However, the Executive Director of an organisation has a big say in the priorities that the organisation pursues and how it handles them. That's what I'm unsure about right now.
E.g., she seems to be soft on the idea of religious morality being imposed by the state, as with anti-abortion laws. If she's soft on those sorts of issues, and takes a narrow view of what it is for government to be "secular", then I think she's the wrong choice - that is more important than whether she's been employed by Republicans in the past. But her priorities and her conception of secular government won't be clear for some time. We really do have to see how this plays out.