Like father, like son

Additionally, over the years Colin Powell saw himself as a "reluctant warrior." He described the first Gulf War as "a limited-objective war," adding, "If it had not been, we would be ruling Baghdad today -- at unpardonable expense in terms of money, lives lost and ruined regional relationships." Just weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on America, Powell told the New York Times, "Iraq isn't going anywhere. It's in a fairly weakened state. It's doing some things we don't like. We'll continue to contain it. But there really was no need at this point, unless there was really quite a smoking gun, to put Iraq at the top of the list."

Yet by February 2003, Powell was serving as the administration's point person in trying to rally support for a war targeting a fairly weakened state and one designed to install, in part, U.S. rule of Baghdad.

Along with the similarities, conspicuous differences in how the Powells operated also emerged. Throughout his career, Colin Powell had always been adept at using the press, perhaps never more so than when, during Bush's tenure, Powell and his aides let reporters -- most famously, Bob Woodward of the Washington Post -- know about the internal battles he was waging over the losing Iraq policy. Just last month, word leaked that Powell had warned both Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair that more troops were needed in Iraq. Given the backdrop of escalating violence in Iraq, Powell may have been the last military expert of note to make the observation. Nonetheless, the Post played the story on its front page, ensuring that Powell would be seen as fighting the good fight, right up until his last days in the administration.

Michael Powell, however, proved himself to be inept at playing the media game, which is ironic given his FCC position of overseeing radio and television broadcasting in America. (Colin Powell has his own paradoxical tic: He was a secretary of state who didn't want to travel.) Determined to handle the question of ownership rule changes as strictly a legal one, Powell ordered the FCC to prepare a brief arguing in favor of the changes, which Republican commissioners then OK'd. Assuming his work was done, Powell made no effort to create any sort of public or political support for the initiative, and seemed to have a nonexistent relationship with the Washington press corps.

In fact, the younger Powell seemed to go out of his way to snub public discussion. That perception was reinforced by his decision to schedule just one public hearing on the historic rule changes. He also refused to testify before Congress about the issue, refused to make public the details of the rule changes that the FCC voted on in June 2003, and broke with FCC tradition by ignoring a courtesy request from fellow commissioners to postpone a policy vote by 30 days. Determined to generate an actual debate, the two Democratic commissioners organized 10 unofficial forums across the country to hear from the people; Powell ridiculed and then boycotted them. (Powell was much more willing to appear before industry trade groups, however.)

When Michael did at least try to use the media to press his case for further consolidation, it often backfired in spectacular fashion. On the eve of the ownership rules vote in 2003, Powell told the Financial Times that by not allowing for further media consolidation, "there is a real worry about the long-term survivability of free, over-the-air television," adding, "I think there is a very easy way for it to collapse." The notion that ABC, CNN, Fox and NBC would be forced into bankruptcy if they weren't allowed to buy up more television affiliates or newspaper chains simply had no basis in fact. Indeed, TV networks' billings for prime-time shows in 2004 were up 13 percent over 2003, to a whopping $9 billion. CNN pro-business host Lou Dobbs remarked on the air that it was "just mind-boggling that Michael Powell would say that they're [in danger of] a collapse."

That both Colin and Michael Powell decided not to stay on and serve through Bush's second term is not surprising. That both accomplished so little during the past four years is.

• View blog reactions