AP Photo / MSNBC
Mitt Romney’s quick criticism of the Obama administration’s response to this week’s attacks in Libya an Egypt inspired an interesting piece by the Sun-Sentinel’s Chan Lowe – interesting especially to those jazz fans among us. He reminded readers of the Dave Brubeck Quartet’s saxophonist, Paul Desmond, who wrote and performed what may be the most well-known jazz tune ever (“Take Five”), and a musician whose silence could be as powerful as the notes he improvised. Lowe explained:
There is a time, if the context is conducive, when silence can be the most appropriate and effective way to communicate. Great leaders, as well as great musicians, know when silence is called for. Less skilled, less able practitioners—let’s call them amateurs or wannabes—think that filling the air with more noise furthers one’s objective, when in fact, the opposite is true.
To sum up, there’s a time to shut up and realize that there are issues of global importance weightier than one’s immediate aspirations, and that creating chatter at the wrong time can be extremely unhelpful to the professionals who are trying to guide unstable events through treacherous waters to the nation’s best advantage.
In other words, Mitt Romney is no Paul Desmond.
Leave a Comment:
Sure he can be a JAZZ fan but when it comes to being a JAZZ virtuoso,Bill Clinton has him topped unless Romney could play the SAX just as good as Clinton if not better than him ( which I doubt very much ).
Mitt romney has a tin ear , no rhythm and no soul. his politics are yesterday definitely not today . He's just a clueless person on everyday America .
If referring to Mitt's politics as yesterday comparing him to Reagan's view, I will take that any day over our current " spend us into oblivion" politics.
As for President Obama and the problem in the middle east. President Obama said nothing for 15 hours then the first thing out of his mouth was to criticize the only person that has acted presidential in the last 4 months. President Obama helped removed the last leader of Egypt and help the Muslim brotherhood into power. They are the cause for this unrest. If any one is incompetent when it comes to foreign policy it is President Obama. He started Libya ( all by himself) and look at the mess he created. He should call Jimmy Carter for some help.
I also find is interesting that no one on the left looks at Bill Maher's view on the Muslims as he put it forth in his movie " Religulous ". Maher should be the White House spokesman, but I believe they disagree on this subject.
For some reason it was decided months ago by the liberal media that Barrack Obama would rule the foreign policies issues. I mean, he had apologized in early 2009 on his world tour victory lap for US actions and presences in Muslim lands, and hinted that the US would be withdrawing and toning down their military capabilities in the world. And he promptly followed with a toned down granting of only 2/3rds of the military effort in Afghanistan, coupled with announcement of a set date for total withdrawal, win or lose, from that country in 2014, and a phase down of troops strength to begin just a year after he added to the effort there. Then he followed by short circuiting the status of forces agreement between the US, our allies, and the new Iraqi democratic government on the effort to train and provide logistical support to Iraqui armed forces and police, in his haste to make good on his campaign pledge to end the Iraq War, that had been won by his predecessor's and US and allied prosecution before he took office, but not cemented yet by leaving a strong and independent national force intact. Usher in his new dictum of "leading from behind" dealing with the Arab Spring issues of peoples of the Middle East claims for the same democracy and freedom they saw let loose in Iraq, which it turns out, was simply an Obama pseudonym for more diplomatic and military withdrawal from the Middle East and Western Asia. And the result of these policies is what you see today, resurgent fundamentalist islamist hard-liner's ginning up crowds in the streets to battle with their fledgling young governments, in all out rioting, designed to set the tables for fundamentalist power grabs, and all uniquely timed for the 11th anniversary of 9/11.
But the media, who continues its love affair with Barrack Obama, and had nothing but words of praise for him when he voted against appropriations to support of military in Iraq and Afghanistan as a Senator, and as he campaigned loudly against George Bushes prosecution of the Iraq War, and especially against the successful and winning strategy of the surge of forces in Iraq, thru his campaign for the nomination of his Party and his campaign for President, he received no criticism for speaking his mind, even when it clearly gave comfort and aid to the enemy. But when it comes to Mitt Romney, oh no! He spoke out of turn! He doesn't have the right to criticize neither the President's erroneous foreign policies, nor his intentions of making deep cuts in our nation's Defense Budget. Those kinds of criticism are reserved for Democrat challangers to Republican Presidents only, according to the rules of the liberal media.
Why is the issue Romney's statements and not Barrack Obama's lack of statements on what his failed policies have set forth in the Disappointing Arab Fall from what should have been a capitalized upon Promising Arab Spring? Why is the media not pursuing with calls for a Press Conference from the President, and allowing him the luxury of getting out of Washington DC to hit the campaign trail? Why is Obama allowed to NOT man up to his job and quit hiding behind Hillary Clinton's skirts? And when is the liberal media going to call him out for Obama's ignorant GAFFE of just the other day delivered in an interview as he paused on his "I'm Out Of Touch" campaign and fund raising tour of the Rockey Mountains when he stated "Egypt is not are ally, nor is Egypt our enemy". To which the State Department had to issue the correction this AM that Egypt is very much our ally, directly contradicting the amateur President of the United States, who has sadly placed Pakistan in the very same position, floating in an Obama conceived no mans land of diplomatic and military support provided, but not treated as though they are two allies they have been for the past 20 years BO...Before Obama!
Dianne-Does this agree with what you said? Remember when Johnson made a video showing what would happen if Goldwater was to be elected and it showed an atomic explosion. Obama should make a similar video showing nuclear disaster.
I like the musical analogy about the importance of timing, arrangement and rests. I trust President Obama to conduct his administration and orchestrate a proper plan of action. As far the comments from Mr. Romney about this volatile situation are concerned, they are about as welcomed as an off key tuba would be to the Dave Brubeck Quartet.
The form that I use to predict presidential election shows 14 for Obama and 12 for Romney, but it does not include the debates. My prediction is that Romney would have to win at least two of the three debates and come out even on the vice presidential debate. Once you are able to rate the debate, you will be able to predict the outcome. I gave Romney 3 pints for having more money. All the other factores had one point such as "Most of the Evangelicals will vote for Romney". I gave Obama one point for "Most of the women will vote for Obama". Obama is ahead 2 points on my survey, but the debates have 4 point on which neither have been decided. If Romney wins 2 debates and Ryan comes out even, Obama has a slight lead, but not good enough to win. Of course if Romney wins all three debates, then he will win even if Ryan loses because the presidential debate is more important than the vice presidential debate. That is my conclusion, let us see if I am right. Some will say that some event may change the dynamics, but I doubt it.
A 'peace loving personality"? That has a nice sound to it... (See Christ, Jesus)
As for the thoughts of a McCain Presidency the last four years,, that would've included the presumption of a Palin vice-presidency...
'Nuff said...
(Grandpa was over on Matthews--stalking me no doubt--trying to distance himself from Caribou Barbie as it was)
And Dianne, Fuzzie right about only saying something once, although I understand the belief that some are to dense to get it the first time... (Don't even think of stealing that one, Grandpa)
The basic question is this: Is it possible to reduce tension between Christianity and Islam? War will not solve the problem. Strength will not solve the problem. What can be done or should we just give up and realize that the tension will increase with greater and greater destruction. This is what Christians tell me. According to Revelation tesnsion are supposed to increase and get worse until Jesus come. I do not believe that. It is mythologial Therefore, are we acting based on some false mythological concept? If we do, are we not acting on a false premise. Forget for a moment who is going to ge president. Try to answer my questions. Is it possible to defeat Islam or should we try? Is it possible for all to live in peace? If not, the future if a trajedy and I know for sure that Jesus is not coming back and everything will be Ok with only Christians and Jews living in the new earth - this is insane. Religion is the worst evil. Maybe more advanced civilizations will have only atheists. Can you imagine how wonderful the world could be if everyone is an atheist?
The idea that according to Revelation what is now happening in the world, all these protest are supposed to happen. The Chirsitans tell me that this is what God wants and it will get worse because it is a sign that Jesus is coming. If we believe this, what is the end rsult? Is this not a false premise? If it is a false premise, the will the result be a tragedy for everyone. We war breaks out in the middle east, then Russia and China may also be involved. If a world war breaks out, there are those who will feel that it is better to destory the whole world then to loose. The end ot the world may come, but not as envisioned by Christians.
I got to see Dave Brubeck perform this live in San Francisco a few years ago. So there.
How about at the Newport Jazz Festival in 1961, Greg? Been there from the beginning!
You might want to look at the original (full) piece on Chan Lowe's blog, The Lowe Down: