I'm not sure it is an effective argument implying that those of us
with a differing opinion on the naming traditions are myopic and ill-
educated on USN history. Sure, current politicians do some good deeds
worthy of notice, but your arguments speak of exceptional ones, not
commonplace ones. No disrespect to Mr. Warner, but he hardly rates ANY
ship bearing his name in times of peace when names are few and get
cycled so infrequently.
As to your comments that we uneducated folks have little knowledge of
the foundations of many ship names, I'll simply agree with you in
stating that most folks don't bother with the obscure details of some
destroyer's or Minelayer's name. When the USN had thousands of ships to
name, it frankly wasn't required to be a well known hero or person of
importance. Some pilot shot down in some battle somewhere, some XO on
a ship who repelled boarders on a privateer, even mediocre ship
captains from history like Bainbridge made the list. To me those are
unimportant details when a ship's deeds (or misdeeds) speak volumes.
With so much time having passed, I think the USN can be choosy on it's
ships names and select the most significant. Adding new ones is ok,
but it should be supported by history, not as a thank you for getting
elected in a state that has a base associated with it and pushing for
funds, which frankly was self serving for his state and not necessarily
serving the USN. Same applies to presidents...since most honestly have
no reason at all to be on a ships' hull.
So long as historic names remain available, such as Yorktown or even
State's names for that matter, I see little reason for adding the John
Warners of our times.
Erik

Now, back to the drivel...


You may as well honor the people who helped that Navy, somehow
> or other. And you may want to think about reading a little deeper in
> history as to how the USN came to be instead of just how the USN lost
> the first year of the WWII and won all the rest or some drivel like
that.
>