pentagon partisianship? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

boatin · 01-30-2007, 11:34 AM

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?

HTML Code:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/070123

Quote:

Next, the Cruiser Mark Foley : The Navy just announced its next supercarrier will be the Gerald Ford. The ship is the first of a new design supplanting the current Nimitz-class, and thus the new class of supercarriers will also be named Ford-class. The three most recent supercarriers, the Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, are all named for presidents. This is a big step up from the previous supercarrier, the John Stennis, which was named for a congressional committee chairman who opposed the civil rights legislation of the 1960s and whose main accomplishment in the Senate was never saying no to a Pentagon budget overrun. The British Navy has ships with glorious names such as Illustrious and Invincible. America has ships named after committee chairmen!

Check the list of the U.S. Navy's supercarriers and note the presidential succession. Of postwar presidents, Republicans Dwight Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan and the elder George Bush have supercarriers named after them; Democrats Truman and John Kennedy have supercarriers in their names; the missing presidents are Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Since Nixon is the only president ever to have resigned, it would be inappropriate to name a ship after him. That means there are three postwar presidents worthy to have their names placed on Navy capital ships, who have not had a supercarrier named for them -- and all are Democrats. Attention Pentagon: You're not supposed to be partisan, how come the Navy is showing favoritism to the Republican Party in the naming of supercarriers? There is an attack submarine named for Carter, but no ship named for Johnson or Clinton. Bill Clinton was elected to the presidency twice; Gerald Ford was never elected to any national office, and served only an interregnum term in the White House; Jimmy Carter is is the only living president to have won the Nobel Peace Prize; yet Ford's name now graces the new class of supercarriers, while the Navy has extended only a lesser honor to Carter and no honors to Johnson or Clinton. This seems cheap political favoritism unbefitting the United States military.

Bill O'Rights · 01-30-2007, 11:44 AM

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

Aparently not.

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.

Paq · 01-30-2007, 02:16 PM

nuclear sub, so yeah, he served..

loquitur · 01-30-2007, 02:59 PM

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.

boatin · 01-30-2007, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

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...

ratbastid · 01-31-2007, 08:39 AM

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.

reconmike · 01-31-2007, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

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

Aparently not.

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.

Last time I checked Ford IS deceased

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.

roachboy · 01-31-2007, 08:54 AM

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

Willravel · 01-31-2007, 08:57 AM

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.

Bill O'Rights · 01-31-2007, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

Last time I checked Ford IS deceased

Carter's not.

mixedmedia · 01-31-2007, 09:20 AM

Neither is GHWB.

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

Seaver · 01-31-2007, 10:02 AM

Quote:

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

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.

01-30-2007, 11:44 AM	#2 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	I thought that one had to be deceased in order to have a ship named after him. Not the case? Aparently not. 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. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt. Last edited by Bill O'Rights; 01-30-2007 at 11:48 AM..

01-30-2007, 02:16 PM	#3 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	nuclear sub, so yeah, he served.. __________________ Live. Chris

01-31-2007, 08:54 AM	#8 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	what is the naming process for ships etc.? just wondering... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-31-2007, 09:20 AM	#11 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Neither is GHWB. Frankly, I don't give a damn who or why names get on military ships. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

01-30-2007, 02:59 PM	#4 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	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.

01-31-2007, 08:39 AM	#6 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	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.

01-31-2007, 08:57 AM	#9 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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.