Hey, they already named a ship for John Murtha.

They've been sliding down the slippery slope for a while. First, in the 1960s, they named a ship after JFK, because there was a brief national hysteria of naming things for JFK after his murder.

Then, they named one after Ike, because the other party had to have their politician remembered. That established the "tradition" of naming a capital ship after deceased Presidents. Post mid-20th century, capital ships are carriers, so every president from Ike on has had a carrier named after him (the "deceased" didn't last long when politicians' egos could be stroked). Some colonial-era Presidents had nuclear subs, mostly boomers, named after them -- so did some non-presidential founding patriots, like Patrick Henry and George Washington.

There is one exception to the Presidents get carriers rule. Because he had been in training to be a submarine officer when he quit the Navy (to run the family farm after his father died; he had a brother but the brother was a bum), they named a submarine after Carter. ironically, it's a sub fitted out for, among other things, special operations. I do not have first-hand information but the second-hand info I have is that crew of Carter take pride in their ship despite the name.

While you may say what you will about the perks of the Presidency, naming a ship seems a bit excessive. But that was the tradition, until Congress got the bright idea that ships ought to be named for themselves. The first was Carl Vinson, the next John Stennis, but the tide gates were then open.

Since this campaign of Congressional -- well, political, really -- self-aggrandizement began, the previous ship names, like Oriskany, Essex, Lexington and USS America have either been allowed to go extinct or have been used for lesser classes of ships. Many of the Marine-hauling amphibious ships bear the names of the great carriers or World War II, which often were names that traced back to the Continental Navy, or to battles the Continental forces fought (usually victories) in the Revolution.

The character of the Congressman in question does not seem to be a factor, simply his or her power or celebrity. This same Navy Secretary named a ship after John Murtha, whose contribution to national defense was a net negative because he looted the DOD budget of so much money by earmarking it for his cronies and himself. The Bureau was zeroing in on him when he went out on a timely infarction.

I guess once one of those grifters gets a ship, none of them are content with elementary schools and post offices any more.

It's not a partisan thing. I think the Democrats are slightly more frivolous in the names they put forward -- Mabus's defense of the Giffords name was weak water indeed, thanks for posting it -- but that may just be my conservative biases speaking. The fact is, no ship should be named after a living poiitician. Cripes, we're still uncovering scandals about the long-dead ones.

I'm amazed we haven't named a ship after Martin Luther King. My nephew had at least a week of instruction on him in K through 4 and was left with the impression that he was the greatest American of all time.

On the plus side, President Obama's success or failure notwithstanding, the Democrats will be on board to support at least one more carrier thanks to his election.

I don't know what's next. Maybe selling naming rights. I can see the news story now: "The Verizon Wireless battle group is being joined in the Arabian* Gulf by a powerful task force built around the USS Facebook and eleven other vessels..."

Lord love a duck.


* I know that's not the right name, but Reuters uses it because the Arabs own their very balls and nutsack, and I use it to offend the Iranians.

No, neither.

I feel for the Congresswoman, she has come a long way and still has a long road ahead. I feel for the families of those that were killed.

But naming a ship after her? Ridiculous.

After much cogitating on this, I've decided I don't really give a rat's ass who the Navy names their boats after.:p

I guess nobody has (1) ever looked at the list of names the Navy has used for its ships over the centuries or (2) read the link to the Navy's reasoning for the naming of the USS Gifford (Post #7). I don't see anything wrong with what they've done and can only imagine where this thread might go if they hadn't already commissioned the likes of a ship like the sidewheel steamer Harriet Lane which was launched in 1857, the first armed ship in service with the Navy to be named for a woman - who, OBTW, was the niece of bachelor President James Buchanan and had served as his White House hostess. :rolleyes:

Well - until the proposal for the USS Gifford, there were only two members of Congress to have been so honored.

- Carl Vinson was a member of the United States House of Representatives for fifty years and the Chairman of the House Naval Affairs and Armed Services Committee for twenty-nine years. He was the principal sponsor of the so-called "Vinson Acts" which culminated in the Two-Ocean Navy Act of 1940 and provided for the massive Naval shipbuilding effort in World War II.

- John C. Stennis chaired, at various times, the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, the Armed Services, and Appropriations committees. Because of his work with the Armed Services committee (1969–1980) he became known as the "Father of America's Modern Navy", and he was subsequently honored by having a supercarrier, USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74) named after him.

I don't see why anyone would have a problem with either of those nominations. :confused:

Richard :munchin

I don't read his post...............
 

".....I don't see why anyone would have a problem with either of those nominations. :confused:

Richard ..........."

I don't read his posts that way at all. After those two it became ".....well, you did it for them why not................" and the gate was opened for the pigs to stuff their snouts into the slopp.

That's the problem with lowering standards for a select few, it allows the riffraff to follow them on through.

To those of you who have weighed in on this issue THANKS! Richard your link to the logic used in naming this ship was appreciated. Going to the link only served to confirm my original though and that is that the Secy. of the Navy is an idiot. Hognose thanks for your two cents, you took the time to not only tell us your opinion but you gave us all a history lesson regarding the naming of USN ships. I am and will continue to be in awe of incredible amount of knowledge that exists out there on this forum, thanks to all.

richard...i read your post...i dont see anything wrong with this naming...she supported the militay and a strong border defense...lobbied for veterans...and perservered to endure....

None supported......
 

None in Congress supported the Military more than her?

I'd say this was a feel good politican naming.

possibly...but can you think of more viable choices? the army named choppers after cultures they vanquished....

The Huey were a vicious, evil tribe! :eek:

Pat

Some at great cost to the Army
 

Some at great cost to the Army

Iriquois. :D

TR

The Iroquois were wimps compared to the Huey!

Pat

commanche...apache...blackhawk...iroquois...