^ :yep:

There has been a push to do the namimg almost from the day Chavez died; most of the groundwork and movement came under Dubbya's administration, not Obama's. I really think that even with a GOP in the White House, the naming would have gone forward just as a matter of politics, catering to the Latino electorate. I don't agree with the naming of a USN craft after Chavez at all, but, at least, it is not an active combat vessel. There was and is an outcry by some on the far left who feel that honoring Chavez by naming a "military" vessel after him flies in the face of his vaunted non-violent philosophies...

I always use that little factoid to drive the Chavezites nuts; Chavez did, in fact, very publicly and openly come out against illegal immigration because, while he and his group were trying to unionize farmworkers, farmowners would undercut his efforts to stage strikes against the farms by hiring other illegals not affiliated with his group as strikebusters. Chavez was extremely vexed by this tactic. He relented in his stance only when it was seen as counter-produtive to his alliance with other left-wing groups at the time and because it was, ironically, costing him support in the Latino community...

...

Great post Vienna. :up: Can you cite the start of naming a vessel after Chavez under Dubbya's administration?

It was obviously done for political reasons should not be that much of a shocker plenty of vessels are so named I personally think that vessels only be named after cities,states,battles,and persons that did a great deed as a member of the Navy(or other branch of service: example USS The Sullivans been a few of those since WWII the Navy brothers that all died on the same ship) There are plenty of Congressional Medal of Honor winner names to go around.Naming ships after any political person I do not like unless it is from or historic past over 100 years or longer ago).

For AVG:

http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/ake14.htm

It does not say how far in advance they choose the names but I doubt it is done more than a year or so before the build gets contracted which would be some time in 2008 it says that the Secretary of the Navy picks the names which means that they would do so around the time they give out the contract to build the thing that would be my guess.I am guessing that it was during Obamas time also the many articles about the reaction to the naming date from 2011 which implies that the name must have been selected some time in 2011.If they named ships several years in advance there would have been reaction to the naming at that time and not in 2011.

What political reason and under what administration? Vienna states Bush. I'm getting the idea you might believe it is under Obama?

Based on the information I can find about the naming process and the fact that all articles related to the naming date from 2010/2011 this implies to me that the name was chosen and finalized in the months prior and regardless it was named under Obama because his SECNAVY made the name official if the name had been chosen years in advance it makes little difference as the SECNAVY at the time of handing out the contract the building of the vessel is the one who makes the name official.

Also if Bush wanted a vessel named after Chavez during his time he had would have named a vessel that would have been launched while he was in office(some only take a year or so clearly) if he wished to receive any political gain this would have to have been long ago during his first term. Obama gains from this naming that is very clear the ship gets launched in 2012 in San Diego no less and is named after a person prominent to many Hispanics. :hmmm:

The naming of U.S. Navy ships used to be based on very non-political lines, for example in WW2, carriers were named after famous battles, battleships after states, cruisers after cities, subs after fishes, etc.

That changed more and more after ww2 and not necessarily for partisan reasons. When adm. Rickover was trying to convince Congress to fund the L.A. class subs, he named them after the cities of congressmen who supported the project. When someone in the Navy pointed out that subs were traditionally named after fish, he supposedly answered that "Fish don't vote".

Mainly I've been hearing about the naming controversy in local (Los Angels) press and media. Also, via some people I have know or worked with who were/are involved in the "canonization" of Cesar Chavez. I had fought and argued with them almost since the beginning because I have long, long felt the naming process to be a reward/buddy/old boys system, rather like the the naming of public buildings, highways, etc. The Chavez process accelerated under the Bush II admin because local supporters felt Bush would be more receptive to the idea given his perceived affection for the Mexican population while in Texas and a GOP need to shore up support in the Latino electorate...

Chavez died in 1993, so the initial move to name a vessel after Chavez started during the Clinton years. I rather suspect it didn't get any where because, outside of the Southwest, few people knew who he was. It took time for the legends/myths to fully gestate. I was working on projects for the Affirmative Action office of the County of Los Angeles during the Bush II first term and a number of the employees were involved in the whole Chavez movement and I do recall a couple of them being very pleased the proposal had moved some steps up the ladder under Bush. My opposition did not make me a very popular person, even more so when I opposed making Chavez's birthday a legal holiday. They held that Chavez was an important part of U.S. history and deserved to be honored. I pointed out that the only legal holidays for individuals were for George Washington (founding father, first Gerneral of the Armies, first President), Abraham Lincoln (defended the Union, was asassianated in office) [later combined with Washington to become "President's Day], and Christopher Columbus (with all apologies to our Italian descended citizens, given what history has proven, I don't think this is now deserved, either). Chavez was, at best a regional personality, affected only a minor portion of the population, died peacefully in his sleep, and will probably be forgotten by most people in a few generations, if not for the activism of his ardent followers, hardly of the national magnitude of Washington or Lincoln...

BTW, I do also recall there was a controversy over the naming of the carrier after Reagan. Some felt it was to soon after his passing and not enough time had passed for history to give the full measure of the impact of his presidency. I tended to agree, since I vividly recall the rush to name everything in sight after JFK; although, there was the very strong argument that Jfk had given his life in office. But, then again, would they be naming a carrier after Nixon if someone had put him out of our misery instead of him resigning in disgrace...

...

Hmmm, let me see here.

Article is from.... The Los Angeles times. Which as we know, is in California.
According to the article, the ship was launched in San Diego, which, as we know, is in Southern California.

In a state where the Mexican flag is as common, if not more commonly seen then the American flag, i have to wonder where does the surprise part come in that they'd launch a ship named Chavez?

We have difference of what is known about the naming from Vienna and Stealhead. That is neither here nor there. What remains is Bubbles finds it "disgusting." That is fine because Bubble is entitled to their opinion.

What remains, other than political, should this vessel be named after Chavez based on his merits or service? :hmmm:

My opinion is that ships (and subs if marine animals and plants are all used) should be named after:
1. geographical locations (states, cities, lakes, rivers etc.)
2. significant battles
3. distinguished military personnel (Medal of Honor recipients, admirals/officers/enlisted with extraordary record etc.)
4. elements & animals
5. after concepts like Her Majesty's Royal Navy does (which I don't think fits to U.S. Navy ships)

After what they should NOT be named:
1. politicians (except if he/she also fits to any category above, having locations/animal's etc. name as first/surname not counting)

Well Chavez did enlist in the Navy in WWII and was in from 44-46 he was born in Arizona and actually was anti illegal immigration(farmers where hiring illegals to counter his unionizing efforts).

What exactly are you asking AVG?I assume they are naming it after him for both reasons his post service merits are viewed in different lights people though.Also other persons involved in civil rights have ships named after them Chavez is not the first, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Me...vers_(T-AKE-13).

Here is how it is done (naming ships that is) http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS22478.pdf (I just found this PDF)

I suppose that is the best source on the naming topic I suppose one could ask the Navy Public Affairs Office(I am not being smart Alec here they would have the official Navy answer)

Found this in one of the footnotes in the document link in Steelhead's post:

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=60467

The comments section is particularly interesting...

...

Naming an entity after a political leader will always result in controversy, I bet there are also some sailors on the H.W.Bush, not happy with her name, but doing their duty in a professional way.
So I see the whole thing as a sign of society's plurality. Chavez represents political ideals, shared by many others, part of America's political spectrum. Like AVG and others said here: everyone's entitled to their opinion, and regarding Chavez as an important man is one. You may not like his work, but he was an American who stood inside the constitutional boundaries - that's why for example a "USS Farrakhan" would be insane and should be sunk at once :arrgh!:

@vienna: Just curious: Are you against the naming of the ship for political reasons, as in you don't agree with his politics, or do you think his national impact was not important enough to name a US ship after him rather than a "West Coast Guard" vessel?
btw: there is one holiday for a civilian leader: MLK day - who certainly had a bigger national importance than Chavez, not too sure about creating a state holiday in CA for the latter; you guys still have a big and importnat agricultural industry.

a little desailing of the thread: I think his stance on illegal immigration is a pragmatic position, which unfortunately seems to be not too common anymore. The position of the thinking left, from the real world rather the position of middle-class college kids who are not directly affected by illegals as they don't compete for jobs with them. The stance that illegals not only negatively affect their own (non existant) labor rights, but also the ones of others, and thus hamper any efforts to change labor conditions for the better, is something I pretty much agree upon.

If AOE gets named for Chazez I don't care as long as we get CVN-80 named Enterprise.

We SOOOO need a USS Billy Bob Thornton! :yeah:

I bet the galley will serve the best french fried tators in the fleet.

Or worse Borg invasion... ;)