The Cincinnati Beacon - Rep. Tom Brinkman: Gay-Bashing, Racist, Hate Speech is “Appropriate”?

Word on the street has it that State Rep. Tom Brinkman—who cannot run for another stint at State Representative due to term limits—has his eye on national office, specifically Jean Schmidt’s Congressional seat. Given the recent scandal surrounding Don Imus, will the nation be ready for Tom Brinkman’s racist friend Jim Schifrin? Will our country take kindly to Brinkman’s open fraternization with a vile, disgusting, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic blowhard? And further, what does Brinkman have to say about his own implicit endorsement of Schifrin’s obscene behavior—which includes posting pictures of naked women to the internet (with no disclaimer), and referring to the Mayor of Cincinnati as a “gay darkie”?

(Remember, Brinkman fronts himself as an ally to the “family friendly” movement, the CCV, and all of those yahoos. How does that jibe, then, with the family unfriendly garbage of Jim Schifrin?)

Recently, I asked Tom Brinkman some simple questions. I wondered if he had awarded Schifrin a plaque, honoring him as the “voice of the conservative agenda”—something Schifrin has claimed in The Whistleblower—and whether Brinkman found Schifrin’s rhetoric appropriate or inappropriate.

We did not ask him whether Jim Schifrin should be forced to stop saying whatever he pleases. We have not advocated for Schfrin to have no access to free speech.

Please print this as my response:

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Thank you.
Tom Brinkman Jr.

Not understanding this weird copy-and-paste job, I sent Brinkman the following message:

Tom,

I’m confused. I did not ask if Congress should pass a law “abridging the freedom of speech.” I asked you if you gave Schifrin a plaque, if he deserves recognition, if you think he represents the conservative agenda, and if you find his rhetoric appropriate or inappropriate.

If I asked you if he should be prevented from publishing, your response might make sense.

But I am confused as to why you would avoid a handful of straightforward and simple questions.

Please explain.

Thanks,

[The Dean]

What kind of clarification did Brinkman supply? None. Just this one line message: “I stand behind the First Amendment and all the rights it provides.”

By this point, I felt totally confused by Brinkman’s incomprehensible replies. Why was he talking about the First Amendment? I just wondered if he supported his friend’s racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and hateful garbage. I did not inquire as to whether Schifrin had the right to espouse an unfortunate lack of wit.

Should someone serve on the national level if he is incapable of addressing the finer discrepancies of an issue as simple as this?

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can log in above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

What's outside?