It was a couple of weeks ago that I heard that venture capital firm Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield and Byers was going to bring on a big name and there would be a fuss about it. I was about to take bets that it was Al Gore, someone who hangs out with a few of the KPCB folks, namely John Doerr.
The news reports about this event when it was finally announced made little sense to me. The clip below, from Silicon Beat, is an example. Here’s what we are told. Powell is going to help entrepreneurs. He’s going to lecture owners of businesses that he has invested in. First of all what makes a career military man an expert in entrepreneurship? As for lecturing people he invests with, why does he need KPCB for that? < read the entire essay bly clicking here>
SiliconBeat: Colin Powell to join Silicon Valley’s Kleiner Perkins
That’s right, General Powell, the former U.S. secretary of state, is joining Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, the well-known Silicon Valley venture capital firm, as a “strategic limited partner.”Here’s a link to our full Mercury News story about tech-savvy Powell, who owns a Treo, a Motorola Razr and three different computers [JCD: that makes him tech-savvy?]. But Powell, who resigned as secretary of state last November, will not relocate to Silicon Valley from his office in Virginia. Instead, Kleiner Perkins has created a new kind of position for him, to draw on Powell’s considerable global experience to help mentor entrepreneurs.
“I wanted to be on the leading edge of technology developments in American and in the world, which will not only benefit America, but all of human kind,” Powell said in an interview.
To be clear, as a “limited partner,” Powell is an investor in the fund – and so is not part of the core team of Kleiner Perkins’ full partners who manage the firm’s activities day-to-day. In that way, Powell is similar to scores of other individual and institutional investors in Kleiner. However, his role extends beyond just investing, which is why the two sides agreed on the additional title “strategic,” Powell said in the interview.
Powell, 68, said he will give talks to entrepreneurs and employees at the start-ups that Kleiner has backed. He also will advise entrepreneurs on how to lead the kinds of large global companies that Kleiner’s start-ups hope to become. He will make regular trips to California, both as part of his existing lecture circuit and to assist Kleiner Perkins, he said.
What a crock. Read the real story here.
Interesting theory, and you’re probably correct. After all, some crochety old Democrat jumped ship to the Repub boat, didn’t he say something about ‘…spit balls?”?
I did not believe, nor was I amused by,, the speech Powell gave to the UN security council with cartoon drawings of rocket transport trucks, and cassette recordings allegedly of Iraqi generals, urging the strike against the Butcher of Baghdad.
But the scenario you describe certainly seems plausible and even somewhat likely. I’m convinced, pending any serious alternative explanation.
Bet the Republikans run Jeb.
Your article looks solid, though. I mentioned it to a couple of friends — including one who just had his name taken off the Republican rolls after 50 years. He said he’d vote for Powell no matter which hat he was wearing. As long as we’d be shed of Bushes/
Interesting idea. Powell has a lot of admiration, deserved or not. If he were the running mate of almost any Democrat, together, they would be a sure bet. I think either Hillary Clinton or Virginia’s Governor Warner would be the candidate. Although Clinton has name recognition and has been been getting the press, I think Warner has a better chance with the party establishment, plus he’s a Southerner.
The only possible contest would be if Senator John McCain runs and could get a middle of the road Republican (Senator Richard Lugar?) or even a conservative Democrat such as Joe Lieberman as a running mate. To be sure, if Powell is the running mate for McCain, then That will be a shoe in.
If Powell leads the ticket for either the Democrats or Republicans against a moderate, he is a goner. Old Generals have not made good Presidents with the possible exception of Washington. He might have support as a support player but not as the leader. If Jeb Bush, Frist, Trent Lott, or another extreme right wing Republican runs, then Powell would win in a heart beat.
But, anything could happen in the next two years.
this is the guy who laid his creditibility on the line giving the UN proof of Iraqi WMD. He then danced a jig on it (his credibility). Too late.
>Old Generals have not made good Presidents
It depends on the type. Guys like Scott and Clark(“Kerry’s a lieutenant and I’m a general”) that are medals guys don’t work out, but the normal guys do.
AB CD
Ok, can you name a former General that did make a good President?
Washington’s success was mostly because he was the hero of the revolution. It wasn’t until the next Presidents, Adams and Jefferson that initiatives began to happen.
Jackson? He brought nepotism to a new, previously unseen height. Native Americans were robbed of their land (which was sold for pennies to speculators). He defied the Supreme Court. He shamed America.
Grant? He did nothing to help reconstruction. He allowed carpetbaggers to rob the South. His army brought Native American land theft and treaty breaking to a new level. He was as incompetent as his administration was corrupt.
The next four (or is it five) Presidents that were Civil War Generals were all just as bad and unmemorable.
Eisenhower? Another does nothing and let the world continue to turn President. He warned us about the “Military-Industrial Complex”, which was nice, but said nothing about McCarthy’s witch-hunt. In fact he chose for a Vice-President “I have here on micro-film a list of communist sympathizers” Nixon. After Truman’s policies wore off, America fell into a depression. His interventions into other countries and support for dictatorships won the US a reputation that still remains today.
Dubya? Masquerading as General Disaster, his record speaks for itself.
Pat,
I must strongly disagree with your assessment of Washington.
His strength and force of character, good common sense and sound judgment largely made the Pres office what it is today. It is a tribute to GW that so many of the traditions and SOPs created by him are still in effect and still effective today.
His refusal to get involved in Party politics (which started almost at once when the nation was founded) allowed those first formative years to proceed in a very even handed and non-partisan way. It gave time for party structure to be created that were roughly equal in power and this provide some semblance of choice.
I think more to the point his refusal not only to be a king, but to NOT run for a third term left us the tradition of the peaceful and fairly frequent turnover of power that is one of the minor miracles of our system to this day. Remember no other politician ran for a third term until TR in 1912, and no other successfully ran for a third term until FDR in 1940. Thank god for the 22nd (right?) amendment.
I don’t think any other man could have done half as well as he did being the “first”.
As the Indian removal policy – That was standard American policy from GW till TR – so lump everybody in the country in on that one.
How did Jackson “shame” the country – I can’t think of an incident, but I don’t know everything.
Thanks