pentagon partisianship?
 

Seems like I've heard a fair amount of "support the office of the President" types of comments over the last 6 years. More, in my opinion than in the previous 8. So when I read this (gotta love the sports page), it just seemed to be more of the same type of hypocrisy.

I'm all for supporting the office of the president, why can't the "right" do it too? Or is there another explanation I'm missing?

I thought that one had to be deceased in order to have a ship named after him. Not the case?

Aparently not. :p

But...didn't Carter serve on a sub? If so, and I think that he did...then I would see that as fitting. And again...didn't Ford serve on a carrier? Don't know so much about the others, save for JFK and his PT boat.

nuclear sub, so yeah, he served..

Many of the people serving in the military detested Carter and Clinton and considered them unworthy of the title "commander-in-chief." So I can see how people who feel that way might not want to name things after them. Johnson I can't figure out, though Vietnam may have had something to do with it.

So it's not about respecting/supporting the office? It's only respecting/supporting if you like/agree with the person there. I'm largely ok with that, but I just want to be clear...

Yeah: "support the office" means "We know the current officeholder is a braindead jackass who couldn't lead one person in a straight line. But at least respect the office enough not to completely crap all over his pathetic failure-magnet of an agenda."

Personally, I have a vast respect for the office of the President. I respect it enough to want the current braindead jackass OUT of it.

Last time I checked Ford IS deceased :thumbsup:

Nice little op piece, concidering Ford was one of our most combat decordated
presidents.
So it seems rather fitting to name a carrier after him, and Clinton will get his due as soon as the Navy creates a swift boat to England his name should grace the first one. :lol:

what is the naming process for ships etc.?
just wondering...

I'm more concerned about individual politics of high ranking military intelligence officers effecting the way they fo their jobs than I am about naming boats. I know that a lot of people who are in charge of gathering intel in order to protect us from real threats are still Bush supporters and that could lead them to look in the wrong place (Iraq, circa 2002) for threats and ignore actual threats (North Korea, the Texas governor's mansion). Partisian polarization always effects us negatively.

That being said, I hope that the USS Goerge W. Bush is a submarine with a screen door.

Carter's not.

Neither is GHWB.

Frankly, I don't give a damn who or why names get on military ships.

Depends on the ship. Submarines used to be named after fish, nuclear subs tend to be named after states.

Carriers used to be named after cities, nuclear carriers tend to be named after admirals or presidents.

As far as who makes the cut depends on a lot of things. The Bush/Reagan carriers were dedicated because during the design process they were the presidents in office. Admirals are a much harder cut to make, Nimitz of course deserved one for leading the fleet during WWII, however most get smaller Destroyers, Amphibs, etc named after them.

I'm sure politics comes into play for Carter/Clinton, both heavily reduced military budgets which compared to Reagan/Bush era reduced both weapon technology and military training. Naturally the Admirals today were Lieutenants or Captains during the respective eras. Both of these ranks are tough ranks to progress beyond, so would have certainly felt the pinch as budget cuts were made.