The name game is nonsense regardless of where the name comes from. It is shallow and shortsighted to depend upon surnames to make judgements about political aliances or leanings.
Were that a valid approach, we would have nobody allowed to participate in the American revolution since everyone involved came from Europe. We would have had a very difficult time during WWI and WWI due to the vast number of Italian, German, Spanish and even Japanese government workers. Heaven help us if we look at the Spanish-American war and Texas Revolution time periods and the federal and local governmental employee roles.
Then we move from the first degree of suspicion and move to those with "bad" surnames that are third and fourth generation or married into a family name. How do we determine what their motivations and loyalties are based on their names?
It is one thing to face facts and recognize that many of the top people Obama has placed in office have very quickly faced scandal and have been given a pass in the confirmations to hold office without nearly the scrutiny of any past presidential installments. It is notable because these scandals have been brought to light within days of, and sometimes even before, their confirmations rather than years later as in the case of past nominee scandals. This would indicate that the presidential vetting process is crap and his knowlege of his candidates in "marginal" at best, or that they have been granted political favor for some reason despite their abysmal past and less than sterling characters.
This specific case could have nothing to do with Obama's nominee and his decisions, or it could be a direct result. Until more investigation results are revealed we can only speculate. While that is not fully fair or balanced, it can be a lot of fun.
Did I say that out loud?