:e
Monday
)ctober 30, 1995
^The Battalion
Opinion
Lydia
Percival
Columnist
HEUimii
is ste[
iow thal
ild haw
e ract,'
(he ani
ants) ai
ng haw
ihis raw
mental
n. I jiiit
m 1 evei
la
)ved
in the
Make up your mind
Powell should not run for president if he can't identify with either party
er ten-
1 Soccer
icon.
0 and
y, ° ut -
lebyi” |
oeriodi
abo
dfi
r f
to lead
am to a
•ranked
iday in
or thi®
:k after
Top 25
nt of 8
Guerri-
;O0d f0 r
a come
’eat at
d tea®
3 rest of
dng > n
thwest
ds
FL’s c a '
idown/
.ofton, 5
t a If
; in tb e
fullb aC *S
lice
tad^ ll,,1
of
n boW
V Net
•owd:
o Je rr '
time r e :
fatiott 81
,ed
brati 011
c thre"'
latef
; ons f° r
L ng e ^ eS
s Ange
la.
C olin Powell is no good for
the Republican Party, and
he has no business run
ning for president.Ultimately,
Powell would crucify the Repub
lican Party.
If he runs as an indepen
dent, he takes votes away from
the GOP, and Clinton wins.
If he runs as a Republican,
he takes the party away from those who have begun
changing America.
First of all, he is not a Republican. He said that he
would not run for president with the Democratic ty be
cause they already have a candidate (if that is wh you
would call Clinton) and because the Republican Party is
the party of the future.
Great philosophical reasoning, General. You like the
Republicans because the Democratic Party would be
hard to break into with an incumbent, and they aren’t
as popular or trendy right now.
People like Paul Simon and Mario Cuomo say that
Powell is a Democrat, and (I don’t believe I am say
ing this) I believe them. Many Americans these
days are calling Colin Powell a
Rockefeller Republican.
I hate to get picky, but
there’s no such thing. The Rock
efellers used to be Republicans
before Barry Goldwater came
onto the scene and took the
party from them in
1964. Today, Jay Rock
efeller serves in Con
gress as a Democrat.
Therefore, loosely
translated, saying
“Colin Powell is
a Rockefeller
Republican,”
is equivalent
to saying,
“Colin Powell
is a Democ
rat.” So why
run in the Re
publican Par
ty? Oh yeah,
that’s where
the future is.
Many love
Powell be
cause he isn’t
a confirmed
Republican.
They love him
because he is
a “centrist.”
I refer to it as being
an “indecisivist.” Isn’t it bad
enough that he can’t figure out
what party he likes more?
In 1992 people were already toss
ing Powell around as a possible pres
idential contender, and USA Week
end did an article on him.
His children said he was uncom
fortable with the Republican party socially, but he agreed
with the GOP on issues of defense. Reinforcing that, he has
said lately that he likes the Republicans economically but is
uncomfortable with their stance on social issues like abortion
and gun control. Candidly, he said he did not fit comfortably
in either party.
Being indecisive on whether you are a Republican or a De
mocrat is an interesting predicament for someone considering
running for president on the Republican ticket.
My philosophy on “centrism” is that if you sit on the
fence long enough, your rear will get sore. Powell has al
ready semi-learned that lesson. A few weeks ago he said
he wasn’t comfortable with The Contract With America.
He said it was too hard and too harsh, and he called con
servatives “Neanderthals.”
I don’t think that helped him in the polls much, and after
numerous alleged calls to conservatives like William Bennett
asking how to come across more conservatively, Powell came
out complimenting Gingrich and praising change.
Does this sound like any present politician you know of? It
sounds a wee bit like a saxophone playing, french-fry eating
guy we currently call “Mr. President.”
A competition between Clinton and Powell would cer
tainly be interesting.
We could see who could waffle more during the campaign.
Many get angry when people criticize Colin Powell. They
tell you that America needs his decisive leadership.
What decisive leadership? I remember hearing that
Powell had to be talked into the Gulf War. He wanted to
try economic sanctions for a year.
Many will retort that he was a great leader during the Gulf
War. But he was basically a communications director, a mes
senger between President Bush and General Schwarzkopf.
Granted, he was the most important liaison of the Reagan-
Bush years, but he was not the general leading the troops in
battle. If you are a voter looking for another Eisenhower, go
find “Stormin’ Norman.”
What else makes people think Powell is a decisive leader?
He thought the O.J. Simpson trial was a tribute to our justice
system. He makes great statements like “We must reform wel
fare.” Ooooh! How exactly does he propose that we do that?
He hasn’t said. He makes more statements like “We must
heal race relations ” Another brilliant observation, but how?
In this sense, 1 reminds me of another 1992 presidential
candidate. This one had big ears and said things like “Larry,
you have to get under the hood and fix it.”
Really helpful. At least Perot suggested the hood as a place
to start. Powell has yet to do that much.
I do not understand Powell-mania.
He hasn’t done anything but write a book and ponder run
ning for president for the past two years. Does it really take
that long? We are only one year, one week and one day away
from election day 1996.1 wonder if he will have decided by
then whether or not to run.
Powell has much to offer as a role model because many peo
ple admire him . If he runs for president in this modem era of
politics, he stands to lose his role model status for nothing.
Powell seems to be on the verge of running for president not
because something deep within him believes in a philosophy
that can help America, but because something deep within him
wants to be president.
The last thing America needs is a man committed to no po
litical principles, willing to do or say whatever the polls say he
must, in order to be elected.
No thanks, General, if that’s the candidate America is look
ing for, we can just re-elect Clinton.
Lydia Percival is a senior journalism
and political science major
The Battalion
Established in 1893
Editorials appearing in The Battalion reflect the views
of the editorials board. They do not necessarily reflect
the opinions of other Battalion staff members, the
Texas A&M student body, regents, administration,
faculty or staff. Columns, guest columns, cartoons
and letters express the opinions of the authors.
Contact the opinion editor for information on
submitting guest columns.
Editorials Board
Rob Clark
Editor in Chief
Sterling Hayman
Managing Editor
Kyle Littlefield
Opinion Editor
Elizabeth Preston
Assistant Opinion Editor
Do Something
The decision-making bodies of Texas
A&M should start to focus on action.
Texas A&M student lead
ers and administrators have
perfected one thing this se
mester — talking. Unfortu
nately, that’s all that seems
to be happening.
Forums, round table dis
cussions and coffees have
served as sounding boards
for concerned students to ex
press their opinions about
multiculturalism, the gener
al use fee and many other is
sues. Administrators have
sought student input ad
mirably before making im
portant decisions.
However, far too often,
these student groups and ad
ministrators focus too much
on rhetoric and not enough
on action.
When discussion is not de
veloped into action, the Uni
versity becomes mired in a
bog of inaction.
The multiculturalism pro
posal, first introduced in
1993, has neither been ap
proved nor rejected.
Two years of debate are
essentially two years of in
action. The problem of on-
campus housing shortages
looms on the horizon and
only now is the University
confronting it.
Countless important deci
sions approach, and the de
lays displayed by campus
leaders in the name of in
formed policy-making does
not bode well for the future.
This University is at a
crossroads. The campus is
facing real problems with in
creasing popularity and lim
ited resources. Talking can
only go so far; action is the
only way to solve the many
problems A&M faces.
Ample opportunities exist
for students to voice their
opinions, and these opportu
nities are welcome.
But what the campus
needs now is definitive ac
tion. Administrators and stu
dents who are elected and
appointed to act in the inter
est of the University should
do so.
The forums and the chat
sessions are nice but it’s time
to put the money where the
mouth is. Do something.
Aggieland not representative of A&M
A&M yearbook contains issues that have no place in a keepsake item
R eally, I should
n’t be too sur
prised.
I’ve been at Texas
A&M for the lion’s
share of the 1990s
and I’ve seen a lot of
things not go the ole
army way.
Flipping through
the 1995 Aggieland last week I felt the way
I have when the Aggie football team loses,
the Faculty Senate passes any resolution
or I read my yearly degree audit.
Many times in my five to six years at
A&M, I have felt helplessness as little
fringe issues have risen on campus into
tarnishing and malicious images of our
campus and student body.
Even now, when I get a whole half of a
page per week to vent my frustrations, I feel
like there are people who attend an entirely
separate Texas A&M than the one I do.
Among those people I find the Aggieland
staff and contributors.
I can picture it now. I’ll be seventy-eight
years old, my mind stricken by Alzheimer’s
disease and bitter to the bone.
I’ll walk to bookshelf and pull out the
1995 Aggieland to recall fond memories of
my time in school.
Being senile, I won’t remember that I
wasn’t a racist, alcoholic or gay-basher,
and so I’ll close the book having one more
thing to be bitter about.
The new Aggieland speaks to
students who don't know or
understand the unity here.
Of course, what I am referring to is the
opening pages of last year’s Aggieland.
It does not lie: The problems do occur.
It does not conceal the truth: It will be read.
More importantly, though, it does not
accurately represent Texas A&M.
Texas A&M is not attended exclusively
by hate-mongers, homophobes and continu
ously drunken idiots.
A proportion of the brightest minds in
the nation attend school here. Throughout
most of the school year, the students are in
,jSTC> rY
6U the
* * si ***/$>
accord with each other.
Our strength as a group is some
thing many have long admired about
Texas A&M, and it is not something
we can dismiss on a whim.
The Aggieland staff may not have
meant any harm, but like it or not,
those premiere pages of the Aggieland
will serve to define us all.
In the reader’s glorious ignorance
these the pages will introduce them inaccu
rately to this University.
Diana Hodges, Aggieland Edi
tor, mentioned in the
Bryan-College Sta
tion Eagle that in
the 1940s and
1950s, pictures of
students in white
robes (presum
ably expressing
the racist senti
ments of the Ku
Klux Klan) were
shown in the Ag
gieland.
Also, pictures
of the first
women atten
dees at Texas
A&M were
placed in the
shape of a ques
tion mark in the
back of that
year’s Ag
gieland.
In the article
Hodges said,
“It’s about time
the yearbook had
something more
than propaganda.”
My question to Hodges
is, does the Aggieland staff not wish to
hold itself to a higher standard?
Those examples of the past were obvi
ously wrong, but they are no more ‘propa
ganda’ than the pages which taint this
year’s edition.
Most likely it is our fault as a student
body to allow such a narrow group of indi
viduals to represent us in what will ulti
mately be such a lasting publication of the
way things were.
The Aggieland has done such a fine job
in the past that we all assumed it would
continue the tradition.
I strongly urge those of you who are dis
mayed at the outcome of this yearbook to
get involved.
Apply to work at the Aggieland. If it
wasn’t for the sad fact that I am finally
graduating this year, I
might do the same.
Ultimately, you
must take the Ag
gieland as a char
acterization of
yourself, being a
Texas Aggie.
It speaks to
those who don’t
know of the unity
at A&M.
Those who don’t
understand what
it means to wear
an Aggie Ring and
be a part of some
thing larger than
themselves.
To those of you
who are pleased
with the attention
your causes have
received through
the Aggieland, I
do not wish to
censor you.
In addition, I
may not even dis
agree with you, but
those issues do not portray an
accurate or responsible picture of the
integrity of this world class University,
and they certainly do not deserve the mar
quis pages of our memories.
This Aggieland will not find its home
among the memorabilia I claim from my
time at Texas A&M.
I’ll be drinking the proceeds of my year
book refund at the Dixie Chicken, and yes,
I will share with my minority and homo
sexual friends.
Alex Miller is a senior
bioenvironmental science major