Another Republican Homophobe Outted as a Closet Case

[Ritterin Sophia]

Huffington Post

An embattled Mississippi mayor has come out after an investigation revealed that he used city funds to cover personal expenses including a visit to a gay adult store.

The Tennessee-based publication The Commercial Appeal prompted the revelation from Southaven Mayor Greg Davis, after receipts provided by state auditors showed that Davis had spent thousands of dollars worth of liquor, expensive dinners and even a personal vacation, in addition to a charge for $67 at Priape, a store in Toronto that is described by its website as "Canada's premiere gay lifestyle store and sex shop." Davis is said to have made the visit to the shop during a recruitment trip in Canada.

"At this point in my life and in my career, while I have tried to maintain separation between my personal and public life, it is obvious that this can no longer remain the case," Davis said. "While I have performed my job as mayor, in my opinion, as a very conservative, progressive individual -- and still continue to be a very conservative individual -- I think that it is important that I discuss the struggles I have had over the last few years when I came to the realization that I am gay."

You can listen to a recording of Davis' full disclosure here.

Davis, a Republican who ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 2008 on a conservative platform, has been under a criminal investigation for allegedly misusing $170,000 on both city-issued and personal credit cards -- $96,000 of which he has reportedly has repaid so far. "These expenses submitted by Mayor Davis as official events and purchases on behalf of the city are a betrayal of the public's trust, and I intend to pursue the recovery of this money to the fullest extent of the law," State Auditor Stacey Pickering told Fox News in November. "Clothing purchases, family counseling and personal meals and entertainment are in no way authorized expenses for the city and should not be paid for on the taxpayers' dime."

This comic seems to be becoming more and more applicable every month or so:

[Scorpion]

Is this warm fuzzy feeling I get inside when another fucktarded homophobe gets outed as being gay wrong?

[Count Chocula]

It appears that the mayor is being pursued for embezzling city funds, not for being homosexual. His personal issues impacted his public duties and fidiciary responsibility. THAT is the controversy, not his sexuality.

[Raxmei]

It appears that the mayor is being pursued for embezzling city funds, not for being homosexual. His personal issues impacted his public duties and fidiciary responsibility. THAT is the controversy, not his sexuality.

Well no kidding, homosexuality isn't a crime after all. It's just funny that one of the things he appears to have embezzled city funds on was a gay sex shop, especially considering his politics.

[bobalot]

It appears that the mayor is being pursued for embezzling city funds, not for being homosexual. His personal issues impacted his public duties and fidiciary responsibility. THAT is the controversy, not his sexuality.

Well no kidding, homosexuality isn't a crime after all. It's just funny that one of the things he appears to have embezzled city funds on was a gay sex shop, especially considering his politics.

I'm not sure why being outed as a hypocritical "family values" douche and being outed as a financial crook is mutually exclusive in terms of newsworthiness.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

Where in the article is the mayor described as homophobic?

[Dalton]

Schatten, Scorpion: Please provide proof of claimed homophobia. "Conservative Republican" != "homophobe".

[Zaune]

Where in the article is the mayor described as homophobic?

Schatten, Scorpion: Please provide proof of claimed homophobia. "Conservative Republican" != "homophobe".

Well, the fact the GOP actually let him run for Congress on their ticket suggests he must have done some public queer-bashing. Or do I misunderstand how US political parties actually work?

[Ritterin Sophia]

Schatten, Scorpion: Please provide proof of claimed homophobia. "Conservative Republican" != "homophobe".

You and I both know 'Family Values' is dog-whistle politics for anti-LGBT which his campaign ran on in 2008 in support of John McCain and Sarah Palin, saying he 'will always vote with the conservative party', you can't 'always vote with the conservative party' without voting for an anti-gay agenda.

[Dalton]

This is still not proof of personal homophobia. A political affiliation does not define the entirety of a person's political or religious beliefs. Again, provide proof of your claim.

[Keevan_Colton]

This is still not proof of personal homophobia. A political affiliation does not define the entirety of a person's political or religious beliefs. Again, provide proof of your claim.

Pledging to support oppression of gay rights (which is indeed the republican family values platform) while being homosexual is however a clear sign of personal hypocrisy. It show support of a homophobic agenda, even if he isn't personally homophobic...it's cutting rather fine lines though, is someone opposed to interracial marriage a racist while someone who only votes to ban it not really a racist?

[Scorpion]

Schatten, Scorpion: Please provide proof of claimed homophobia. "Conservative Republican" != "homophobe".

I have none besides the thread title. That, however, does not change the fact that I do have a warm fuzzy feeling inside whenever a conservative homophobic fucktard get's outed as teh gays.

[Justforfun000]

Well no kidding, homosexuality isn't a crime after all. It's just funny that one of the things he appears to have embezzled city funds on was a gay sex shop, especially considering his politics.

Just for the record..Priape is not just a "sex shop". They sell clothing and a variety of items. But yes, you can purchase porn, dildo's, leather, ass chaps, etc. there too. That store happens to be literally in my neighbourhood.

[Rogue 9]

Well, the fact the GOP actually let him run for Congress on their ticket suggests he must have done some public queer-bashing. Or do I misunderstand how US political parties actually work?

You do. Political parties in the United States have no direct control over their membership; anyone can register as a Republican, Democrat, or whatever the hell else they feel like, and the parties have no power to remove them. In fact, in states with open primary elections, such as my own, it is common practice for people to show up and say they wish to vote in the primary of the party they don't identify with (no proof of party membership is required at the polls) and vote for a spoiler if their own primary doesn't have anything important going on. (For instance, this year many Democrats will likely vote in Republican primaries, since Obama's nomination is all but assured.)

If the Republican National Committee had the power to eject members, Ron Paul would have been cashiered a long time ago.

[Serafina]

Wow, i didn't know that.
Yet Another Thing the US Does Completely Different Than Anyone Else.
A political party not having control over it's membership is virtually unthinkable over here.

[Zaune]

Wow, i didn't know that.
Yet Another Thing the US Does Completely Different Than Anyone Else.
A political party not having control over it's membership is virtually unthinkable over here.

Or under the British system either. In certain circumstances, failing to vote in accordance with the party leader's wishes can theoretically get an MP kicked off the party ticket; I can't remember if this triggers a by-election or not, but it's almost certainly death on the newly-independent MP's political career beyond the next General Election, because the parties also provide most of the funding.

I leave it as an exercise to the reader to decide whether the US system is actually preferable.

[Block]

Well, the fact the GOP actually let him run for Congress on their ticket suggests he must have done some public queer-bashing. Or do I misunderstand how US political parties actually work?

You do. Political parties in the United States have no direct control over their membership; anyone can register as a Republican, Democrat, or whatever the hell else they feel like, and the parties have no power to remove them. In fact, in states with open primary elections, such as my own, it is common practice for people to show up and say they wish to vote in the primary of the party they don't identify with (no proof of party membership is required at the polls) and vote for a spoiler if their own primary doesn't have anything important going on. (For instance, this year many Democrats will likely vote in Republican primaries, since Obama's nomination is all but assured.)

If the Republican National Committee had the power to eject members, Ron Paul would have been cashiered a long time ago.

This isn't entirely correct. You can register as whatever you want, but that doesn't make you a party member. By registering as a Democratic voter, or a Republican or whatever, you're just showing your leanings. To become an actual party member is a more involved process and requires paying of dues, etc.

[Rogue 9]

Well, the fact the GOP actually let him run for Congress on their ticket suggests he must have done some public queer-bashing. Or do I misunderstand how US political parties actually work?

You do. Political parties in the United States have no direct control over their membership; anyone can register as a Republican, Democrat, or whatever the hell else they feel like, and the parties have no power to remove them. In fact, in states with open primary elections, such as my own, it is common practice for people to show up and say they wish to vote in the primary of the party they don't identify with (no proof of party membership is required at the polls) and vote for a spoiler if their own primary doesn't have anything important going on. (For instance, this year many Democrats will likely vote in Republican primaries, since Obama's nomination is all but assured.)

If the Republican National Committee had the power to eject members, Ron Paul would have been cashiered a long time ago.

This isn't entirely correct. You can register as whatever you want, but that doesn't make you a party member. By registering as a Democratic voter, or a Republican or whatever, you're just showing your leanings. To become an actual party member is a more involved process and requires paying of dues, etc.

Yes, but they still don't vet your opinions and eject people for disagreeing with the platform. Members of Congress aren't ejected from their party for voting differently from the whip, contrary to the lockstep method apparently used in parliamentary systems. (This would actually hurt the party, since in such an instance they'd simply piss off the member of Congress, as in the United States individuals are elected to office rather than parties.)

[Korto]

Wow, i didn't know that.
Yet Another Thing the US Does Completely Different Than Anyone Else.
A political party not having control over it's membership is virtually unthinkable over here.

Or under the British system either. In certain circumstances, failing to vote in accordance with the party leader's wishes can theoretically get an MP kicked off the party ticket; I can't remember if this triggers a by-election or not, but it's almost certainly death on the newly-independent MP's political career beyond the next General Election, because the parties also provide most of the funding.

It won't trigger a by-election. We run the same system here (inherited it from you). Being kicked out of the party means you become an Independant. The party can't strip you of office as the party never awarded you office in the first place, the voters did.
It will however mean in the next election you wont have any party financial support, and will lose the votes of those who vote for the party, not the individual. Which is a lot of them. Your old party will parachute in a new candidate, and make it a personal business to get you out, because they merely dislike the opposition, you they loathe.

In the parlimentary system, individuals are still elected, it's just that the voters will usually vote for the individuals the party they like presents to them.

[Rogue 9]

It won't trigger a by-election. We run the same system here (inherited it from you). Being kicked out of the party means you become an Independant. The party can't strip you of office as the party never awarded you office in the first place, the voters did.
It will however mean in the next election you wont have any party financial support, and will lose the votes of those who vote for the party, not the individual. Which is a lot of them. Your old party will parachute in a new candidate, and make it a personal business to get you out, because they merely dislike the opposition, you they loathe.

For disagreeing on one vote. Jesus Christ, our government would be even more of a shambles than it already is if we ran shit like that.

In the way things are run currently, candidates for the two major parties are nominated by popular vote or by caucusing, so unless an incumbent pisses off the electorate (as opposed to the party elite), he will likely be re-nominated on his party's ticket. Parties could have a slate of candidates decided on in smoky back rooms by their national committees, and in the past this was done, but it pissed everybody off for obvious reasons, so both major parties have adopted the current system of putting nominations to the electorate as a whole. (Third parties largely still decide on candidates by committee or even just run whoever steps up to take a shot in a given district, simply because they don't have the resources to conduct elections.)

[madd0ct0r]

you'd only get kicked out the party in uk if you fialed to vote on a three line whip:

basically, the level of enforcement ranges from free vote (party leader will not hold it against you) all the way up to three line whip (The party leader is holding it against you, and IT is sharp and pointy)

[Darth Fanboy]

So where is this guy on the record of public gay bashing? I didn't see it in the Huffpost article. It is possible to be Republican and Homosexual, or do Log Cabin Republicans not count?

Dalton warn me, ban me, if you think I am dogpiling but you're a busy guy and Scorpion here is annoying me by perpetuating the mindless left wing parroting that goes on in this forum.

Schatten, Scorpion: Please provide proof of claimed homophobia. "Conservative Republican" != "homophobe".

I have none besides the thread title. That, however, does not change the fact that I do have a warm fuzzy feeling inside whenever a conservative homophobic fucktard get's outed as teh gays.

But you haven't proved that the guy is a homophobe, and the truth is that the guy has outed himself as a homosexual. You haven't even proved he is a hypocrite yet. So while I can understand te satisfaction in that someone who stole from taxpayers is being brought to justice, I can't imagine anyone sympathetic to homosexuals who would think that this is the best way to come out of the closet, especially in the public eye of a place like Mississippi. But do go ahead and continue to try and shamelessly earn points with people who share your political leanings, it's not like you make other liberals look bad with the same mindless thoughtless accusations that we accuse Republicans of. No effing sir.

[Duckie]

He ran for congress previously on a conservative, family values platform, so what do you think that was?

[Zaune]

For disagreeing on one vote. Jesus Christ, our government would be even more of a shambles than it already is if we ran shit like that.

Ah, but the awful twisted beauty of it is, almost nobody ever disagrees. They like their jobs too much to do so. Madd0ct0r rightly points out that it's only the three-line whip where you're really down in the brown if you go against the party line, but defying the PM/Leader of the Opposition in a one- or two-line whip too often isn't good for one's medium to long term prospects for advancement; there's no shortage of other, subtler ways to break an uppity subordinate's career. Even a free vote must call for a certain measure of caution if it's an issue particularly dear to The Boss's heart, as for better or worse there's no secret ballot in the House.

The practical upshot of all this is that while Commons votes in Britain aren't quite a formality, they're quite often a foregone conclusion. Three-line whips aren't used lightly, or very often, but they don't have to be. Our elected representatives are too well-trained for that.

[Dalton]

He ran for congress previously on a conservative, family values platform, so what do you think that was?

Guilt by association, in other words. Which is still bullshit, because nobody has proven the claim.

Contrary to popular belief, it's possible for a politician to not agree 100% with the party line, yet support it anyway to maintain solidarity.