February 15, 2002

9:54 AM

There goes Colin Powell, pissing off the far right again. This time the Family Research Council and folks like Gary Bauer demand to know how dare he go on MTV and, in response to a teen's question about AIDS, tell kids to USE CONDOMS! (And for that matter, what is the secretary of state doing appearing on that smut-filled network in the first place, and what kinds of parents allow their children to listen to satanic rock music and hip-hop, and how dare insolent children raise filthy questions with government officials about SEX?!)
posted by jellybuzz (56 comments total)

I told everbody we shoulda DRAFTED Colin Powell as president whether he wanted the job or not. Buuuuut Nooooooo! Y'all hadda vote my Texas brother in dere. Ah didn't vote fer'm! Ah TRIED tah warn y'all!

Powell rocks. And I'm a registered democrat!
posted by ZachsMind at 10:12 AM on February 15, 2002

Colin Powell stated:
"In my own judgment, condoms are a way to prevent infection. Therefore, I not only support their use, I encourage their use among people who are sexually active and need to protect themselves."

If he gets a reprimand from the Bush administration for stating that perfectly intelligent viewpoint (notice he specifically stated in his own judgement and people who are sexually active), we're in more serious trouble than I thought.

Really, it comes off as if it is 200 years ago, and Colin Powell is saying "Look, I don't think flies spontaneously generate from meat, put it in something refrigerated, ok?"
posted by mathowie at 10:14 AM on February 15, 2002

Mark my words. Colin Powell will beat the incumbent Deomcrat in 2008 to become President.
posted by jpoulos at 10:21 AM on February 15, 2002 [1 favorite]

We all owe Powell a lot more than we think; he's just about the only sane person in the Bush gov't, and he's just about the only reason the US hasn't gone completely bonkers in the geopolitical arena.
posted by aramaic at 10:25 AM on February 15, 2002

people who are sexually active

but MTV's mind control waves will change that to People, be sexually active. I know abstinence is the popular conservative approach, but why can't they just teach both? Don't do it, but if you do, wear a condom. Hell, tell kids to play with themselves instead of other people. Its fun. Won't give you disease. Won't produce offspring! Gar-un-teed to please!

almost everyone i know would vote for powell as well. dems and republicans alike.
posted by th3ph17 at 10:25 AM on February 15, 2002

Mark my words. Colin Powell will beat the incumbent Deomcrat in 2008 to become President.

No, he won't. The fact that there's a controversy over this illustrates at least one reason why he didn't run -- the conservative wing of the Republican Party can't stomach some of his opinions.
posted by pmurray63 at 10:28 AM on February 15, 2002

the conservative wing of the Republican Party can't stomach some of his opinions.

right. but the moderate left thinks he's great. he'll win without the far right.
posted by jpoulos at 10:32 AM on February 15, 2002

Hell, tell kids to play with themselves instead of other people. Its fun. Won't give you disease.

Oh yeah, that went over real well for my favorite, smart, competent, intelligent Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders back in 1994.
posted by mathowie at 10:34 AM on February 15, 2002

im moderate left, and Black, and i wouldnt vote for him because he 1) a republican military man and 2) he didnt have the courage to run against GW Bush.

as much as I would love a Black president, i'll wait until there's one who agrees with me on more points than Teens Should Use Condoms.

and if i was going to vote for a General, I would vote for one would could find a guy like Osama Bin Laden.
posted by tsarfan at 10:37 AM on February 15, 2002

pardon the typos, drunk, again, at work
posted by tsarfan at 10:41 AM on February 15, 2002

I'm with you on this issue, tsarfan. I applaud Powell for this, and I like a lot of what he says, but I don't think I could vote for him due to his background.

Question: do you think we have a shot at electing a progressive black president within our lifetime? I'd like to think so, but I've heard a lot of speculation that the first non-white (or female, for that matter) Chief Exec will have to be pretty conservative.
posted by Fenriss at 10:57 AM on February 15, 2002

drunk, again, at work...greatest line of the year.
posted by Mack Twain at 10:58 AM on February 15, 2002

tsarfan said: pardon the typos, drunk, again, at work

Guess that would be the immoderate part of you again! :-)
posted by srboisvert at 10:59 AM on February 15, 2002

I think he would have has a good shot at the presidency in 2000. The thing is, he didn't want to be president.

Few decent men would.
posted by Pinwheel at 11:00 AM on February 15, 2002

I think Powell's military service is an added bonus...He isn't just a career politician.

It was brave of Powell to state a very reasoned opinion like that, with a respectful nod to the beliefs of the Roman Catholic church, but a more profound sense of social responsibility. I also think that Powell's influence on Bush has been a very positive one, which is the reason Bush chose him in the first place. There is a much wider diversity of opinion in Bush's cabinet than many suspect, as Powell has demonstrated on this issue.

I'm very conservative, but I have not been able to accept the Republican party because of their continued pandering to the religious right's (mostly) backward social agenda. Perhaps a Powell candidacy would finally make a clear seperation between the republican party and the religious right, something that 9/11 and its aftermath has already begun.

And if Powell and Condi Rice ran together, I would so be there.
posted by evanizer at 11:06 AM on February 15, 2002

Few decent men would.

no one who wants control over the lives of millions of people should actually have it. Its a problem.

matt...you are right, i guess that has been tried before. Honesty and public policy don't mix well. Great quote from that link....the moral majority are perfectly happy with a country full of stupid pregnant kids.
posted by th3ph17 at 11:08 AM on February 15, 2002

What's really important here is to point out that Gary Bauer is freakish and upsetting to look at.
If you're freakish and upsetting to look at, and you aren't Ron Jeremy, or maybe even particularly if you're Ron Jeremy, you shouldn't be allowed to speak publicly about, or even allude to, about how sex aught to be.
It disturbs me.

Britney Spears will slowly and erringly read just about anything you put in front of her. Let's be sure to put this resource to use, you ugly windbags with views on other people's bonking, okay? Thanks.
posted by dong_resin at 11:10 AM on February 15, 2002

Powell seems like a cool, level-headed guy, but I'm really not certain what he stands for in general. I can't point to line of thought and go, oh, yeah, that's very like Colin, the way I can with, say, George Bush or Al Gore.
I think this would be the hang up with his running for president. People seem to like, well, brands.
posted by dong_resin at 11:15 AM on February 15, 2002

Gotta love American politics. People are heros for advising the use of condoms.

Ya know, I hear Ashcroft says the use of a seatbelt severely improves your chances of surviving a car crash.
posted by Doug at 11:15 AM on February 15, 2002

If you're freakish and upsetting to look at ... you shouldn't be allowed to speak publicly about, or even allude to, about how sex aught to be.

Yeah, because, you know, only beautiful people should have sex. [rolls eyes]
posted by kindall at 11:20 AM on February 15, 2002

As a person I find nothing wrong with the views Powell expressed there. As a conservative I'm wondering what the hell the government is doing messing around in things that aren't their business!

If things are so slow in congress and at the white house that they need to concern themselves with the sex lives of teenagers then we need to lay some people off. I'm not saying that it isn't something society needs to concern itself with, I just don't think that we need to involve the federal government in it. Relationships are complicated enough without federal oversight. Just think of all the forms...


[if Powell and Condi Rice ran together, I would so be there.]
As long as Rice is the head of the ticket I'm inclined to agree.
posted by revbrian at 11:22 AM on February 15, 2002

It's important that you take my every word very seriously, kindall.
Heh.
posted by dong_resin at 11:27 AM on February 15, 2002

only beautiful people should have sex

Yeah, and? *My* life certainly seems to operate on that principle -- you mean I'm the only one that's obeying that rule?
posted by aramaic at 11:35 AM on February 15, 2002

The US military preached abstinence during WWI, and has been telling soldiers about the importance of condoms since WWII. Anyone put in charge of thousands of young men who aren't living with wives or sweethearts would be bound to reach Powell's conclusions sooner or later.
posted by sheauga at 11:42 AM on February 15, 2002

jpoulos: You have to appeal to the party faithful in order to win presidential nominations. Unless Bush somehow manages to overcome the far cultural right influence (his actual spokeperson gave an OK to this statement today, but you gotta wonder how long it will be before the White House backs off) and attract more pragmatic voters to the party, Powell doesn't stand much of a chance, especially in the southern primaries. His military background would surely help, as would the guilt-ridden we're-not-racist factor (just being realistic here - not saying he wouldn't deserve a nomination or not), but not necessarily. No one knows much about his economic stances either, except that he's Rockefeller-ish, so whether he could keep libertarian types and the biz lobby around is decidedly iffy.

So, no relgious right, no libertarian or biz conservatives. That's 90 percent of the GOP! You get the "GOP because they were born that way" and "country club" or suburban garden club Republican vote left. It's thus bye-bye to the nomination, unless the other variables have a more powerful effect.
posted by raysmj at 11:43 AM on February 15, 2002

The scary thing is that people might actually be concerned with what Gary Bauer thinks...
posted by solistrato at 11:53 AM on February 15, 2002

The bottom line, raysmj, is that Candidate Powell wins the national election--probably hands-down. If the GOP isn't smart enough to see that and take advantage of it (which, maybe they aren't, considering how effectively they've buried him in this administration) then fuck 'em. Powell could very easily jump ship and take the Democratic nomination. Let's see how Candidate Bauer (or even incumbent Bush, for that matter) does against that.

Note: The opinions above do not constitute an endorsement of a Powell candidacy. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool lefty, and I'd never support anyone who'd get into bed with the likes of Bush or Cheney. I'm just trying to gague the thoughts of the American public.
posted by jpoulos at 11:54 AM on February 15, 2002

jpoulos: What do the party faithful get for their support in helping the GOP tromp the competition? There has to be some bone thrown to the far cultural right, the way things stand now. They won't go down quietly, unless the other variables I mentioned intervene in a powerful way. Biz conservatives will do their share of yelping too, unless they are absolutely convinced by someone that we're heading into a more liberal era. (Which is what some say we're in for. Younger people are turning leftward, especially culturally but also economically.)
posted by raysmj at 12:05 PM on February 15, 2002

I almost felt somehow betrayed several years ago when I learned for the first time that Powell was a republican. Ya coulda pushed me over with a feather.

Some of the discussion in here seems to hang on the assumption that Powell could be a candidate some time in the future. That's doubtful. He's not gonna run.

Why? His wife told him not to. I am not kiddin'. That big guy. P-whipped. It's a sad thing to see.

And as a divorced man I can say with all sincerity, if Powell's been properly p-whipped, it would take all the armed forces of this proud country to get him in that oval office chair. We'd have to strap him down and tie his shoelaces together. And he'd be yellin' to his wife: "but honey ah tried tah tell'm ah wuzn't intrested please don't hurt me!" the whole way.

That's what I propose. We should DRAFT HIS SORRY BUTT. He's a military man. He's used to the idea of the draft. He could look over at his wife and shrug when it was all over. She'd still beat him over the head with a frying pan, but at least we'd have our first decent president since... well since... well HELL at least we'd have our first decent president!
posted by ZachsMind at 12:15 PM on February 15, 2002

If things are so slow in congress and at the white house that they need to concern themselves with the sex lives of teenagers...

Congress did just that in 1996.
posted by kittyloop at 12:28 PM on February 15, 2002

I'm not a Democrat, nor a Republican, though I do agree with some of the ideology from both parties. However I generally feel that most Republicans are a bit too right-aligned; but it seems to me that Colin Powell has always been a bit of an upstart in the Republican party, and I don't mean that as an insult! I'm just glad that there is a politician who, at least one time, doesn't seem to care about "Party rules" and says what he feels.

If Colin would ever run for President, I'd seriously consider voting for him. Hell... some of the most popular presidents have been ex-military men, so why not Powell? :)
posted by crankydoodle at 12:38 PM on February 15, 2002

Do you really think that America's Youth (tm) is heading leftward? Socially, perhaps that's true (i.e. acceptance of gays) but I get the feeling that economically, they're moving right. The moral righteousness of capitalism doesn't seem to be questioned as much as it once did. Or maybe I'm getting old.
posted by thebigpoop at 12:39 PM on February 15, 2002

Do you really think that America's Youth (tm) is heading leftward? Socially, perhaps that's true (i.e. acceptance of gays) but I get the feeling that economically, they're moving right.

Hmm. In other words, the nation's youth will become...New York Republicans? Social liberals, fiscal conservatives. (Of course, California's Richard Riordan falls into the same category, but this breed of Republican seems largely native to New York State.)
posted by thomas j wise at 12:48 PM on February 15, 2002

Quote:
"Mark my words. Colin Powell will beat the incumbent Deomcrat in 2008 to become President."
posted by jpoulos at 10:21 AM PST

Amen! From your lips to the collective unconscious' ears.
posted by Tiger_Lily at 1:03 PM on February 15, 2002

In other words, the nation's youth will become...New York Republicans? Social liberals, fiscal conservatives.

In the last couple of years, as an early 30s returning college student, I would say this almost perfectly describes the vast majority of late-teen/early-twenties college students that I come into contact with. And I'm talking college at the UW in Seattle, home of the N30 crowd, but despite what you may have heard, the anti corporate crowd is a distressingly small contingent. (Distressingly small and distressingly un-educated and ill-informed about their supposed ideology.)

It's depressing when the college kid next to you thinks he/she is "oh so very liberal" because they once visited their family's maid's home for dinner.
posted by edlark at 1:05 PM on February 15, 2002

Powell would be a Republican I could easily support. And he could win without the hard right as the center-left/right would provide enough support. The only issue would be race. The military side helps to balance that out some in the minds of our... less tolerant... citizens. But it would still be a bit of a hurdle. If Big Time decides to step down because of his bum ticker, Dubya would probably be able to buoy any post War On Terror poll dip with a selection of Powell for VP.

The moral righteousness of capitalism doesn't seem to be questioned as much as it once did

The kids are allllright. :)
posted by owillis at 1:06 PM on February 15, 2002

Here in the DC area, I would have to say the youth in general are right on target to be NY GOPs. Or Republican Party Animals, as PJ once put it.

And, poop: "The moral righteousness of capitalism doesn't seem to be questioned as much as it once did..." I love Capitalism, but moral righteousness has nothing to do with it. Moral (self) righteousness is the exclusive domain of those with more time on their hands than your basic robber baron or software tycoon.

Clearly, I have time to post, so I guess I have time to be righteous, now that I think about it. Damn, I feel loftier already...!
posted by umberto at 1:21 PM on February 15, 2002

No, he won't. The fact that there's a controversy over this illustrates at least one reason why he didn't run -- the conservative wing of the Republican Party can't stomach some of his opinions.

Hate to smash one of your liberal shibboleths, but ZachsMind is right: Powell has not run, and will not run, because his wife doesn't want him to, period. She's totally paranoid that if he runs, he'll be assassinated. Thus he

And the "controversy?" This thread was started in an intentionally baiting fashion by a liberal, and the only people who have bitten angrily are other liberals. Who's talking about this? Nobody. This topic must rank around 94th on the list of Most Pressing Issues amongst American voters in 2002. The only other place I've seen anyone even mention Powell's speech at all besides this thread is on CNN's excreble TalkBack Live an hour ago, and even they couldn't squeeze more than a few minutes out of it before switching to something else. Talk about your Non-Events.

Question: do you think we have a shot at electing a progressive black president within our lifetime?

You have the same shot at electing a progressive black president as you have at electing a white one: none. There simply is no sizable base of truly left-wing (as opposed to merely liberal) voters in this country, and there never will be. Too much of leftist ideology is fundamentally incompatible with the American political system - to say nothing of the "American way of life" - for such views to ever gain any traction in this country.

Do you really think that America's Youth (tm) is heading leftward?

Precisely the opposite is true. Studies have been showing Gen-Xers and Gen-Yers moving more and more center-right to right over the last decade. There continues to be a somewhat of a self-identification as liberal by the subset of America's Youth (tm) known as college students, but the last two studies I've seen seemed to indicate that a) When you actually get their opinions on issues rather than just ask "are you liberal or conservative?", they turn out to be pretty much standard mushy moderates, and b) 9/11 jolted them all quite a bit to the right. (Bush is getting 75% approval ratings from college students as of late January.)
posted by aaron at 1:23 PM on February 15, 2002

Kids tend to do what is immediately convenient to them.
Trying to label them liberal or conservative is sort of after the fact and pointless.
posted by dong_resin at 1:39 PM on February 15, 2002

This thread was started in an intentionally baiting fashion by a liberal...

This whole thing was started in an intentionally baiting fashion by Gary Bauer. Bauer and friends at the FRC say something ridiculous, the papers cover it, and it's posted here. How is this baiting? (Unless one happens to be a pig of Bauer's ilk, in which case who cares? One can't be expected to please everyone.) There was no attack on the GOP, or mainstream conservatism, or even Our President. I reserve the right to call a spade a spade, or a pig a pig. That's the American Way.
posted by jpoulos at 1:52 PM on February 15, 2002

aaron, you obviously were on another planet during the Clinton years, for if not for his skin color, he was the best progressive Black president we could have ever hoped for.

true his ideology was completely incompatible with the American political system, but that was only because the GOP felt (rightfully) incredibly threatened by him as he was their polar opposite (except for that lying through his teeth business).

back to the subject of Teens and Condoms, personally i dont believe any of this nonesense that Powell did not run for office because his wife thought his life would be threatened. you don't marry a military man days before he ships off if you're queasy about him dying, you marry an accountant.

i think the reason that Powell didnt run is that he has some pretty terrible skeletons in his closet that point to either an alternative lifestyle or some nasty nasty stuff that he did when he carried a machine gun. otherwise, there is no reason not to run.

no leader, be it a captain of a football team, or a CEO, or a General, wouldn't jump at a chance to be leader of the free world - it just goes against their nature. especially since he'd win by a landslide. and if there's one thing leaders like more than leading, it's winning.

a tough guy like Powell isnt worried about a Hinckley, he's more concerned with the Advocate, if i had to take a guess.
posted by tsarfan at 1:56 PM on February 15, 2002

There simply is no sizable base of truly left-wing (as opposed to merely liberal) voters in this country

Ditto for extreme right (Christian Coalition types).

Bush and Gore both ran as centrists (their actual beliefs are besides the fact), and that's where American politics is going (and has been). Which is why the Ralph Naders and Pat Buchanans of the world are basically going to be preaching to the converted, while hawking their books. Talibanism (extreme religous conservatives) and Euro-style moral relativism (way lefties) become increasingly incompatible to Americans who would prefer the boat not rock.
posted by owillis at 2:04 PM on February 15, 2002

otherwise, there is no reason not to run.

He didn't run in 2000 because his entire life's philosophy is about waiting until the odds of winning are at their highest. Eight years of a successful (despite Congress's best efforts) Democratic presidency was not something Powell felt comfortable about following up. I can't speak to the opinions of his wife (I wonder how anyone here can), but 2000 had all the earmarks of being an unpredictable election season--long before anyone went to the polls in Palm Beach.
posted by jpoulos at 2:14 PM on February 15, 2002

As a person I find nothing wrong with the views Powell expressed there. As a conservative I'm wondering what the hell the government is doing messing around in things that aren't their business!
posted by revbrian

well, why not? revbrian...would you rather have your tax dollars go to condoms or to welfare, disease, etc...? The government pays for that stuff, therefore, yes, it is their business. You pay the govt. taxes, therefore, yes, it is your business. What would You rather pay for? Prevention or Treatment?

Am I wrong to think that the morally conservative actually LIKE teen pregnancy, people dying of Aids, medical expenses for abortions....are these things seen as some divine punishment for sin? And therefore not something to be stopped? I think that is insane. Please, please, someone convince me that it isn't so.
posted by th3ph17 at 2:23 PM on February 15, 2002

aaron, etc.: A study of college freshmen conducted by UCLA recently showed a significant liberal shift. It seemed to confirm what others have been saying for a while (and was in line with UCLA research of recent years) - that young adults are tilting more toward the left. Only the definition of "liberal" has been disputed here, but the researchers asked about taxation of the wealthy and whatnot too. It is thought that the students behind them will be even more liberal, given that so many were raised in single-parent homes headed by women. Single women are, as a group, more liberal than the general population. And parental influence on political attitudes can't be underestimated.

If the support for Bush among college students is at 75 percent, by the way, that's about 10 percent lower than what the national average has been over the past few weeks. The support of actions in Afganistan has also been about 10 to 12 percent lower.
posted by raysmj at 2:35 PM on February 15, 2002

One reason he may not run for office is because his past is a boneyard. Skeletons aren't exactly spiling out of his closet but they may be deal breakers. The sad thing is he still the most sensible person in Bush's cabinet as his interview with Nat X host of The Dark Side shows
posted by euphorb at 2:36 PM on February 15, 2002

Am I wrong to think that the morally conservative actually LIKE teen pregnancy, people dying of Aids, medical expenses for abortions....are these things seen as some divine punishment for sin? And therefore not something to be stopped?

What the GOP likes is FEAR and lots of it.911 handed them more than they'll ever be able to spin, not that aren't trying.They've always had the religion and sex-related issues to fall back on when they needed to rally the dittoheads up but now they have terrorists too.

The Bush Gang wants America to be afraid. They want us to believe that the Republican Party is the only thing that can save us.

Re:Abstinence - Someone should ask Bush and his gang if they waited until they were married.

Re:Colin Powell - He's as full of crap as anybody and he'll never be President.He's the only black politician known on a national scale that doesn't scare white people, so he's popular, but that's it.That's the only thing that explains all of this adulation.Also, he is currently the only visible sane person in the Bush Gang.

He has said that his wife didn't want him to run for President and he won't do it without her agreement.I believe he'll take a shot at it sometime.His ego is big and that's the number one requirement of any Presidential canidate.
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 4:54 PM on February 15, 2002

I think it's great that Colin Powell endorses condom use, but there's a lot more to know about his attitude toward sex. "Don't ask, don't tell is the common term for the current policy toward gays in the US military. It was introduced in 1993 by President Bill Clinton, although crafted by Colin Powell and has been maintained by his successor, George W. Bush. The policy says that as long as homosexual men and women in the military don't volunteer their sexual orientation, commanders won't try to find them out." [Wikipedia]
posted by Carol Anne at 6:16 PM on February 15, 2002

[would you rather have your tax dollars go to condoms or to welfare, disease, etc...? ]

Neither. In this respect I'm very much a conservative. I don't think they should have most of the tax dollars they have to begin with.

I don't see teenage sexuality as a legitimate federal government area of oversight.
posted by revbrian at 11:36 PM on February 15, 2002

Oh yeah, that went over real well for my favorite, smart, competent, intelligent Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders back in 1994.

Yes that was the death knell for any respect I had for Clinton. . .firing her for her very wise and sound advice for kids. . .

Powell is a Republican, and there are not many of those that I like but he might become one of them.
posted by Danf at 7:58 AM on February 16, 2002

Colin Powell? Well, there is his whole career boosting My Lai experience lying there like an abandoned land mine from a previous war. Avoid idols, guys.
posted by y2karl at 9:12 AM on February 16, 2002

Well, euphorb, I see you made the point already. I was too tired to read all the comments before I posted my comment.
posted by y2karl at 12:52 PM on February 16, 2002

Anyone else think that Colin Powell's a closet Mo? I know he's a Republican, but so is evanizer, right? It's weird, like you know how when you meet somebody and they're just fabulous, and there's something about them that just radiates, and everybody loves them, and then it hits you...

Full blown Mo. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

But I mean come on, if it's only war crimes he's got in his closet, then what does he really have to worry about? This is America, for fuck's sake. Involvement in massacres during past wars would be significant, but not damning. John McCain, John Kerry, blah blah blah... that was then, this is now.

But a gay black president? Not in this lifetime.
posted by David Dark at 1:45 AM on February 17, 2002

David Dark: Your attraction to Colin is throbbingly palpable. You're as hot for him as Maggie Cutler.

It's not just war crimes. It's the cover Powell gave Reagan, Weinberger and others on Iran-Contra (euphorb's post has a Consortium News link that more than covers it).
posted by allaboutgeorge at 3:06 AM on February 17, 2002

And the "controversy?" This thread was started in an intentionally baiting fashion by a liberal, and the only people who have bitten angrily are other liberals. Who's talking about this? Nobody.

False.

Bob Novak criticized Powell for it just this weekend on Capital Gang. Bob Novak ain't "nobody" in GOP-land. It's got some traction.
posted by Medley at 8:09 AM on February 17, 2002

allaboutgeorge: you made me shudder.

kudos to you.
posted by David Dark at 1:32 PM on February 17, 2002