APPLE-POLISHER SHOWS P.O.W. REAL COURAGE
May 24, 2006


This week the world gasped in awe at the raw heroism of Jean Rohe, the student at the New School who gave a speech attacking the commencement speaker, Republican Sen. John McCain, at the commencement ceremony.

We mostly heard about Rohe's bravery from Rohe — and, really, who is in a better position to judge? As Rohe herself put it: "If there's one thing that I know about myself, it is that I care for people, and in that sense I have a great deal of character."

According to her posted biography, Rohe "grew up singing and performing folk music with her family. Jean spent a year at Smith College followed by a summer at the Universidad de la Habana in Cuba on scholarship where she honed her Spanish skills, learned about Cuban history, culture and politics, and made some of her dearest friends" — mostly while waiting in line for hours and hours each day to get toilet paper.

In other words, Rohe is just a typical all-American girl, right down to a stint in Castro's Cuba.

In an unintentionally ironic article about her brave decision to attack the commencement speaker, Rohe describes going around campus the day before her speech and discovering how overwhelmingly popular it would be to attack McCain. At two graduation ceremonies a day earlier, attacks on McCain brought wild cheers from the audience.

See, where I come from, sucking up to the audience is not called "courageous." It's called "toadying."

Every place Rohe went that day she ran into students and faculty fashioning armbands and preparing their protests. As she said: "The situation seemed pretty serious."

Literally every person Rohe talked to the day before the ceremony opposed the war in Iraq and hated McCain with blind fury. Her mother — the one who tortured the children by making them sing folk songs — wept when Rohe read her illiterate speech over the phone.

Rohe's resolve to tell the audience what it wanted to hear, guaranteeing wild standing ovations for herself, was only hardened when she was told there would be media at the event.

While some might say it was gutless to suck up to the audience by insulting an invited guest, they didn't understand the incredible risks Rohe was taking by attacking a Republican at the New School: You'll be a pariah in the West Village! You'll never sing in a jazz club on the Lower East Side again! And don't even think about setting foot on the Upper West Side!

As Rohe later said: "It was something I didn't want to do, but knew I had to out of an obligation to my own values" — which happened to be the exact same values as the entire audience, the faculty, her fellow students, her boyfriend and her mother, each of whom shared the value of being rude to an invited guest who also happened to be a Republican, a U.S. senator and decorated war hero.

And so Rohe attacked McCain's speech before he delivered it, with such devastating ripostes as this:

"Sen. McCain will tell us that we, those of us who are Americans, 'have nothing to fear from each other.' I agree strongly with this, but I take it one step further. We have nothing to fear from anyone on this living planet."

Except all the people who want to kill us.

Such as, for example, Osama bin Laden — and that's according to Rohe, who is furious with Bush for not having caught him yet. Isn't Osama a person "on this living planet"? Does she think we have something to fear from him?

I'm sorry to be a snob, but this trusting view of terrorists is hard enough to take from smart liberals. When I have to hear the New School version of it, my eyeballs have rolled not only out of their sockets but out of the building.

Maybe in her heart of hearts, Rohe does think Bush is an imbecile, McCain a lout, and the war is wrong. Maybe she would think so even if she had ever met someone who holds a different opinion.

But then she should just admit: "I know, I know. I'm an utterly conventional brown-noser, the very definition of going-with-the-flow, middle-of-the pack, finger-to-the-wind follower, who doesn't have the candlepower to resist conforming to the beliefs of everyone around me — but that's what I think."

If you want to find the cool, anti-establishment rebels who don't answer to "The Man" on college campuses today, you have to go to a meeting of the College Republicans. They are rebelling against at least 99 percent of their professors. Even the original '60s anti-war protesters were rebelling against at least 5 percent of their professors. Today's college liberals ape the beliefs of 99 percent of their professors and then pretend they're on-the-edge radicals.

We've always had to endure goody two-shoes apple-polishers — kids with their hands always up, who turn in talkers when the teacher leaves the classroom and volunteer for extra work after school. But not until today's college liberals have we ever had to suffer the effrontery of the ass-kissers telling us: "I'm bad — I clean erasers for teachers after class because I'm baaad."

I don't care what liberals think. I don't care that they're spineless suck-ups. Just don't insult my intelligence by telling me they're brave.

COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER

DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111


http://tinyurl.com/qkn6b

So Jean Rohe is a spoiled little idiot too.

hahahahahahahaha... *sigh*

Ok alias now please tell me, did you put this up as an article to be taken seriously or just to illustrate how irrelevant Ann Coulter is?

This article is nothing but a morality diatribe of the foulest kind. There was not ONE item of information about that girl that was more than idle laundry gossip. EVEN if they are all true, SO WHAT?

Did that invalidate the complaints the AUDIENCE had? Did that make the arguments that the audience AGREED with any less valid.?

A serious writer would analyse the core points raised. Give some sort of counterargument of the complaints and grievances, of the critiques, of the social and political impact of the speech.

Ann Coulter has written an article suited to be printed in a tabloid for the idle minds in the world.

Looks like it, doesn't it. She's a real couragous person, isn't she. Her boyfriend is probably one of those vegans who punches police horses at protests.

Actually, Ann Coulter is just pointing out the silliness and sheer stupidity of spoiled college girl who thinks it's a sign of bravery to smart off about and smear John McCain.

...and she's right.


It'd be no different if she did the exact same thing the day before Bill Clinton came to speak.

Stupid.

Right i would still think it would be vile. A grown woman does not attack girls like that, and a journalist does not skip the important stuff to rant about manners. For god's sake PROTEST was goin on. And she spend he column space analyzing MANNERS?

Ann Coulter is a columnist, not a reporter. Big difference.

Didn't they teach you that in British Grammar School?

Our constitution allows peaceful protest. Our constitution does not allow the protester to infringe on the constitutional rights of free speech of others. You have a double standard friend. There is no excuse for bad manners and that was the point of the article.

Yeah and that chick voiced hers. There is nothing int his article that proves at all that she gave the speech with the motives that Ann Coulter ascribes to her. She only threw mud on her and insinuated that she was a crappy shallow bitch.

So what? That chick was still excercising her constituationally assured right to free speech. So she wasn't breaking any laws, she just had bad manners.

This column is only an example of conservative attack on the speaker beacause they don't like the substance of what the speaker said.

If Mcain had any arguments against her speech he should have exercised HIS right to free speech and dealt with the child. Like a MAN does. Instead the conservatives got their women bitchin about the chick and her manners instead of relating those issues that obviously were too true for Mcain to refute.

The protester is violating the rights of the invited speaker. The protester was not invited to speak. That may be okay where you are from, but not in this country. When you shout down an invited speaker, you are crossing the line. She has the constitutional right to protest peacably, she does not have the right to shout down an invited speaker who is exercising his constitutional right. The protester is the one at fault. You obviously don't get it. McCain was not invited to have a shouting match with a protester. Your thinking is the problem. You justify every act from the left as okay, but deny the rights of those who follow the rules. Typical leftist mind games.