USS George H.W. Bush Hosts Namesake

Naviy.mil ^ | 7/15/2010 | Mass Communication Specialist Seaman J. Scott St. Clair

[Vanders9]

Agree and agree.<

However, sorry but George H Bush is a really cruddy name for an aircraft carrier.

[Enchante]

I’d argue that all US carriers should continue to be named after great American battles..... however, once the Congress started naming them for pols, I’m glad that there is a USS Reagan and a USS George W. Bush.

However, the idea of one of our great subs named for Jimmy Carter is a travesty, and when the ‘Rats push through a ship to be named for Bill Clinton and eventually for Barack Obama, what nausea will follow....

Much better to go back to naming carriers for Saratoga, Lexington, Yorktown, Midway, etc. The USS Independence was a great carrier name, too (my uncle flew A-4s from her for many years).

There doesn’t seem to be any hope for avoiding a USS Clinton and a USS Obozo in our future, though, with politicians in charge.

[lentulusgracchus]

I’ve got absolutely no problem naming a carrier after GHWB.

Principled disagreement. (The kind we specialize in here on FR.)

One, naming ships of war after living persons is untraditional and a no-no.

Furthermore, I'm tired of the trend toward naming capital ships after political nabobs who lived out their lives in DC, like Carl Vinson and Mr. Bush. This is just wrong on so many levels. I can see naming a carrier after someone who championed the Navy and was once a Secretary of the Navy: Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt (with big, black asterisks denotated "Pearl Harbor/Back Door to War"), and James Forrestal are all good examples. John Lehman is a candidate in waiting, for having rebuilt the Navy under President Reagan.

But George H.W. Bush built down both the Navy and carrier air, and he did it because his topsider, Yacht-Club-preppie friends wanted tax cuts. We saw how that worked out in the Persian Gulf: if Saddam had just waited 18 months or two years, we'd have been completely unable to respond if he'd grabbed the entire southern shore of the Persian Gulf and had himself an execution party with all the emirs and their principal ministers.

Dwight Eisenhower was a great American leader -- but he was Army, not Navy. Sorry, I can't get behind naming a carrier for him just because he was a Republican President.

Carl Vinson was the embodiment of a rotten, alienated, corrupted, and politically and intellectually decadent political culture that embarrasses every day the original intentions of the Framers and the People who sent the Framers to Philadelphia to build us a better Union. People like Carl Vinson need to be remembered with garbage scows and honey barges, not 90,000-ton CVA's.

I'd like to return to the naming conventions of World War II, which parsed internally and made sense.

[lentulusgracchus]

There are many legitamite detractions one can make regarding the Bush terms in office, but love of country and it’s military are not among them.

I would not disagree with that. However, Republicans and conservatives need to come to grips with the tendency of GOP topsiders to want -- to demand on behalf of their penthouse-ridden, Old-Money-encrusted audience (using Jas. Q. Wilson political "technical term" here, "audience") -- that taxes be cut and the Army reduced to wooden guns and the Navy to few ships, fewer ships, and low steaming hours and lower ammunition budgets for training.

Remember what the U.S. military looked like in the 1920's and 1930's: That's what I'm talking about.

[GonzoGOP]

A carrier aviator gets a carrier named after him. That has got to be a little overwhelming. God bless 'em all

I thought that it was kind of cool that when they did the island super-lift President Bush put his wings under the island and they are now part of the ship. For someone with naval aviators in the family I can tell you that parting with your navy wings before Saint Peter pins on the permanent set has meaning to them.