The Name Game

The Register’s Sunday Opinion section actually had a little balance this week; two “Reader Rebuttals” from the center-left and a liberal viewpoint on the 5-year aniversary of the Iraq War.  Plus a George McGovern reprint of his Wall Street Journal column that Republicans hailed (ever notice that liberals are always kooks until they might take a libertarian viewpoint on an issue?).

But the Reg’s far right colors show: Mark Steyn on the front about Obama’s minister (while being nowhere to be found on the endorsements McCain got from two whacko evangelical ministers).  George Will writing for the Dems to pick running mates from Ohio.  Two Empty Suit Platitudes of the Week, boh again attributed to Barack Obama (they hate this guy over there; please do your best to check in on what John McCain says from his taxpayer-funded campaign stop in Bagdhad this week). 

And inside the Orange Grove column, former KFI perosnality John Zieglar, an ardent supporter of the Iraq War, had this column on Barack Obama.

Zieglar points out that Blacks are voting for Obama because he’s Black. Sort of how like women are voting for Hillary because she’s a woman or how evangelicals came out in force for George W. Bush because he is/was a Christian.  So what? Its one person, one vote.  People voted for Arnold Schwartzenegger in 2003 to say they voted for the “Terminator.”

Zieglar, who runs a website dedicated to multi-racial golfer Tiger Woods, writes: “However, it must be pointed out that there are stark differences in the way that Tiger Woods and Barack Obama have approached the issue of race in their careers…. Let’s forget for a moment that, to many people (including myself), it’s blatantly obvious that if Obama were a first-term white senator with no notable achievements, he wouldn’t have been taken even remotely seriously as a presidential candidate and certainly would not be treated as the Chosen One by much of the media (Obama said himself in 2004 that it would be out of the question for him to be ready to run nationally in 2008). Obama’s reaction to this “controversy” was far more like the young and inexperienced Tiger Woods rather than today’s seasoned version.

Obama called Ferraro’s assertion “ridiculous” and claimed that no one could possibly think that “being black and named Barack Obama” could be of help in running for president (I guess he is allowed to make an issue of his name, but no one else is). His campaign demanded that Hillary Rodham Clinton condemn Ferraro and remove her from any role in the Clinton campaign.

Is Zieglar living in a hole?  Conservative talk radio is making a regular case of mentioning Obama’s middle name, Hussein, on a regular basis.  Both CNN and Fox News have slipped in Osama when referring to Obama.  John, everyone on the right is making an issue with Barack Obama’s name.  Oh, silly me, I left out the “Hussein.”

  19 comments for “The Name Game

  1. Gustavo Arellano
    March 17, 2008 at 9:40 pm

    John Ziegler is an absolute moron. If Tiger Woods came out and supported Obama, he’d tear down his Church of Tiger bull.

  2. Dan Chmielewski
    March 17, 2008 at 9:51 pm

    For a fun read, go to for Z’s own story of how his contract wasn’t renewed at KFI. You’ll find a man who still believes the Iraq War is right and just, but don’t expect him to go ove there and fight in it .

  3. Dan Chmielewski
    March 17, 2008 at 9:53 pm

    the bigger point: can you imagine the Register giving this kind of space to a liberal?

  4. Steven Greenhut
    March 18, 2008 at 9:31 am

    Dan discovers that the OPINION page has a bias. Will the outrages ever cease? 🙂 Now if we can only get him to recognize that the editorial page is libertarian, not “far right.” We can’t stand Bush — try to find anything nice we’ve said about him in, oh, five years. We opposed the war from the start — which is better than your preferred Democratic candidate for the president. While the “far right” Register has criticized Mike Carona and civil liberties abuses in the jail and pushed for civilian oversight, you “liberals” have been either silent or defensive of the deputies. We favor the legalization of drugs, open borders, an end to the GOP attacks on civil liberties. We support the privatization of marriage, which would allow gays to marry. But we also support less government in every area of life. I can’t speak for others on the edit page, but I prefer Obama to either Hillary or McCain. There I go letting my far right colors show again!

  5. March 18, 2008 at 9:39 am

    “While the “far right” Register has criticized Mike Carona and civil liberties abuses in the jail and pushed for civilian oversight, you “liberals” have been either silent or defensive of the deputies.”

    The OC Weekly was way ahead of you and the Register on that Mr. Greenhut. The Weekly is pretty “liberal” if you ask me. As far as the folks on this blog I have yet to hear anyone defend the Carona regime or deputies that have done wrong.

    The Register’s beef with the deputies is much like Mr. Moorlach’s, it gives you an opportunity to bash a “union”.

    I will give you credit, you have taken police brutality on head on. However your paper lags far behind the “liberal” OC Weekly in regards to going after the corrupt Carona machine.

    And when was the last time you people ever took on “Tony Rack”? He is as much of the problem as Carona and company.

  6. Dan Chmielewski
    March 18, 2008 at 10:06 am

    Steve — The point of the release is Zieglar’s claim that nobody, but Obama, is making an issue of his name other than Obama himself. Its a patently false statement.

    And the ESPW is another Obama 2-fer; McCain is in Iraq on a taxpayer funded campaign junket with his BFF Joe Lieberman; I expect he’ll pronounce all fo the progress in Iraq and how victory is at hand. That’s my nomination for ESPW.

    You are correct about the Reg’s editorial writers are not fans of W. And our local columnists are center-right. But you run Mark Steyn. You run George Will. You run John Zieglar (who loves the Iraq War). When I see a Paul Krugman or a Maureen Dowd grace your pages; Krugman especially because he’s a Princeton economist.

  7. Steven Greenhut
    March 18, 2008 at 10:09 am


    Kudos to the Weekly, which led the way on exposing our Ethically Challenged Sheriff. The Reg editorial page led the way in pushing for the creation of the OIR. Your blog was, well, silent or defending the deputies (perhaps because of your tendency to side with the union). Your accusation that we only criticize the deputies because of their union is weak when you consider how zealously we attacked Carona and the GOP for standing by him. (Check out Matt Cunningham’s three-part series attacking my column for attacking the GOP for defending their man, Mike Carona.)

    Check out the other stances from the conservative media, and you might notice that they acted more like you — quiet about jail abuse, civil liberties issues, the sheriff, the DA and other law enforcement matters.

    Still, I understand why you are changing the subject and won’t explain your being AWOL on these key “liberal” issues while the “far right” Reg edit page was there with the “liberal” Weekly on them.

    As far as Tony R., perhaps you missed our lead edit two Sundays ago blasting him, and the angry response from T. Rack’s office last Sunday. I’ve been quite critical of Rackauckas, but I don’t recall much criticism coming from you. Maybe I just missed it.



  8. March 18, 2008 at 10:23 am


    I have long criticized Carona. Maybe not as a blogger here on the Liberal OC, because my focus has been on other issues, but I certainly did on the OJ.

    In regards to police misconduct I have written letters that were published in your paper. (December 28, 2001 and March 13, 2004)

    And as far as criticism of Tony “Rack” goes I was ahead of the curve on that one Steven. On February 20, 2001 I wrote a letter which was published in your paper calling on Attorney General Lockyer to investigate Rackauckus and his office.

    So you are correct, you did miss it.

  9. RHackett
    March 18, 2008 at 11:19 am

    Hey Steve,

    When are you or your colleagues going to be as critical of government
    enforced monopolies as you are with civil servants. You bash pensions as
    though they were the spawn of Satan yet nary a word when a CEO receives one.

    The LA Times is reporting on the separation package of the SCE CEO. Guess what?
    It includes a defined benefit pension. And please don’t try to tell us that SCE
    is a private company engaged in a free market model.,1,2291435.story

  10. Steven Greenhut
    March 18, 2008 at 11:40 am


    I would NEVER argue that SCE is a private company engaged in a free-market model. I love when lefties accuse us of believing things we clearly don’t believe. SCE is a government-controlled monopoly. In fact, the only way one can have a true monopoly is when the government offers protections to favored companies. Such companies always show the same inefficiencies as governments because they are protected from market mechanisms. I believe in true free markets, not government collusion with quasi-private companies. That’s one of the problems with redevelopment, by the way — politically connected private firms get special privileges and protections from the government. Lefties and conservatives tend to like these arrangements, but not libertarians. Regarding CEO pensions — they are paid for by private firms, and their liabilities are not foisted on taxpayers. We did criticize the GM pensions — but at the end of the day, GM and its shareholders will have to make good on the promises of its stupid and greedy corporate leaders and union leaders. Bad companies go out of business, but protected monopolies such as SCE and governments never do.


  11. March 18, 2008 at 11:54 am

    Regarding CEO pensions — they are paid for by private firms, and their liabilities are not foisted on taxpayers.

    The wrokers pay for the pension. And when a CEO gets their retirement fund yet hundreds of thousands of other workers who work for the same company are in fear of not having that same golden parachute or safety net, then there is something wrong with our priorities!

    Taxpayers pay for the infrastructure that the CEO uses to run his business. Taxpayers pay for the health insurance gaps through ER care that the CEO’s employees use if they don’t have enough health insurance coverage. CEO’s benefit from cheap labor and shipping American’s jobs overseas and taxpayers wind up footing the bill in more ways than one.

    It’s this illusion that all of this is mutually exclusive and that what happens to a private CEO says nothing about the priorities of our culture and the taxpayers is what keeps anything from changing.

    While thousands of people are denied care from the insurance carriers the CEO’s of these businesses don’t have to worry about their multi-million dollar salaries!

    I believe in true free markets, not government collusion with quasi-private companies. – What about bailouts? What about letting these companies, private and “quasi-private” being the backbone of funding campaigns and writing our legislation?

    Governments don’t go out of business because it’s not a BUSINESS. It should never be run like a business, that’s the problem. Until the far right can come to the conclusion that all Government is not evil and the far left can understand that all business is not evil, nothing will change. They are not either or, there are just some cases where certain services should never be PROFIT driven.

  12. RHackett
    March 18, 2008 at 12:13 pm

    Regarding CEO pensions — they are paid for by private firms, and their liabilities are not foisted on taxpayers.

    Steven. Surely you jest. Is the ratepayer given a single choice for electricity any different than the taxpayer with the same number of options? Only a fool would try to convince anyone the two are not synonomous individuals.

    I have to believe you didn’t write this with a straight face. The prospect that you believe the two to be different types of entities strains incredulity.

    Getting back to my point. When can we expect the same criticism of government enforced monopolies that we read from you regarding government?

  13. Steven Greenhut
    March 18, 2008 at 3:36 pm

    RHacket — you apparently did not read my post. I wrote that SCE is NOT a true private company, but a government monopoly. But you are so intent on insisting that I believe something I don’t believe that you must have mistakenly written your rebuttal without having read what I wrote. Regarding CEOs, I am referring to CEOs in private firms, not government-protected monopolies.

  14. Dan Chmielewski
    March 18, 2008 at 3:44 pm

    Steve —
    its entirely possible he didn’t see yor post while he was writing a reply to you; I have had that happen to me several times. And the comments section takes them as they get them.

  15. March 18, 2008 at 3:58 pm


    Maybe RHackett just missed it just as Steve missed my criticisms of Carona and Rackauckus over the years.

  16. RHackett
    March 18, 2008 at 4:09 pm

    Steve. Thank you for your reply. As I asked earlier. When might we start seeing criticisms of government enforced monopolies like SCE, cable companies, trash companies, etc.?

  17. RHackett
    March 18, 2008 at 9:04 pm

    Five hours later. Greenhut lives up to his MO. Long on rhetoric, short on facts, zero on follow-up.

    No surprises.

  18. March 18, 2008 at 9:16 pm

    Rhackett: I’m not sure what you’re referring to, but am I correct in assuming you’re faulting Greenhut for not responding to an earlier comment of yours after 5 hours?

    If so, and with all due respect, I don’t think that’s fair. The guy has a life and a job. I don’t think he or anyone else can reasonably be criticized for not responding to a blog comment within some given period of time. He may or may not have been able to get back here in the last 5 hours. He may have lost interest.

    After I comment on a blog post, I sometimes return later to read further comments and sometimes I don’t. I’m sure you do the same.

  19. RHackett
    March 18, 2008 at 9:24 pm

    Gila. I’ve asked Greenhut the same question in the past with similar results. I know what you’re saying, but the reality is he blasts away at government and civil servants. He claims to abhor government enforced monopolies like SCE, but I have yet to see him write anything nearly as inflammatory about them as he does government.

    So that is why I am not surprised.

Comments are closed.