More on Powell's ambivelent relationship to the White House. It seems to reflect what Gingrich was saying, namely that Powell is being wielded by the beaurocracy instead of vice-versa. I think the comparison to William Rogers is simply unwarranted, its closer to William Jennings Bryan's relationship with president Woodrow Wilson. They simply didn't share the same ideology. They represented two different sides of a split party, Bryan the old, Mid-Western pacifist Christian wing, and Wilson the new progressive, internationalist faction bequethed partially by the legacy of Theodore Roosevelt. Of course, Bryan eventually quit in a huff, and I don't see that happening with Powell, but I think the general situation is largely the same. Powell is much more a product of the pragmatic, liberal Republicanism that has always been in the helm at State. Bush is far closer to the newer, more agressively Conservative wing of the party, i.e. the Reaganites. Oddly, this makes Powell much closer to Bush's father then Bush is himself. This is also why the media loves Powell, the liberal "modern" Republicans have always been the "good" Republicans, for obvious reasons, in the eyes of the press, and not the "bad", "radical" Republicans who Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan brought to power. Powell, in an odd way, is a bit of a relic, despite his immense personal popularity which, as this article points out quite well, doesn't seem to have much to do with his job performance.