GOP radio ad blasts Democrat Vida Miller's refusal to support Marriage Protection Amendment in 2007, after voter approval

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 29, 2008
CONTACT: Tom Swatzel 843-222-7456

GEORGETOWN -- The Georgetown County Republican Party today started running a second radio ad that blasts Democrat State Rep. Vida Miller's refusal in 2007 to support ratification of the state's Marriage Protection Amendment, even after 77 percent of voters in the county had in November 2006 approved the amendment to constitutionally define marriage as only between one man and one woman.

The ad states: "In 2005, liberal Democrat Vida Miller refused to support putting the marriage amendment on the ballot. Next, the people vote. In 2006, Georgetown County voted 77 percent for the marriage amendment. Then lawmakers ratify the people's vote. In 2007, they ratified the marriage amendment, 92 to 7. But not Vida Miller. She still wouldn't vote for it, even after the people did. Vida Miller. Against constitutionally protecting marriage. Out of step with Georgetown County."
Click here to listen to ad

Georgetown County Republican Party chairman Tom Swatzel said, "Incredibly, even after 77 percent of her constituents voted in favor of protecting traditional marriage, Vida Miller went to Columbia nearly three months later and sided not with her constituents, but with extreme liberal activists by refusing to support ratification of the Marriage Protection Amendment."

"Rep. Miller's repeated refusal to support the Marriage Protection Amendment shows that she cannot be trusted to represent Georgetown County values in Columbia," he said.

Two weeks ago, the county Republican Party starting running radio ads that targeted Miller's refusal in 2005 to support efforts in the General Assembly to put the Marriage Protection Amendment on the ballot.
Click here to listen to ad

According to House Journals, in 2005 Miller used a parliamentary maneuver to delay consideration of the amendment in February, and in March she joined 17 other Democrats who were present the day the amendment passed 96 to 3, but refused to cast a vote either way, abstaining on the issue.
Click here for 2005 House Journal excerpts

After the marriage amendment was approved by voters in November 2006, the General Assembly was required to ratify the amendment to the state constitution, which Miller did not support.

The House Journal for January 25, 2007 recorded Miller as present in the House on the day when the motion to ratify the voter-approved amendment was finally approved by a vote of 92 to 7, but in addition to the seven Democrats who voted against ratification, Miller joined 14 other Democrats present on the House floor who refused to cast a vote either way, again abstaining on the marriage protection issue.
Click here for 2007 House Journal excerpts

"With the California Supreme Court decision and the recently passed Massachusetts law that allows gay and lesbian 'marriage,' traditional marriage in South Carolina remains at risk in the federal courts by liberal activist judges. Now more than ever, Georgetown County needs a representative in Columbia who will fight for, not against, our family values," Swatzel said.

According to Swatzel, Miller's refusal to support the marriage amendment both before and after it appeared on the 2006 ballot is consistent with the national, state, and local Democrat Party's support for homosexual activists' political agenda.

The national Democrat Party platform says about same-sex marriage, "We support the full inclusion of all families, including same-sex couples, in the life of our nation, and support equal responsibility, benefits, and protections. . . We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act and all attempts to use this issue to divide us."

According to the S.C. Democrat Party platform, the party will "oppose any amendments to the South Carolina Constitution that codifies discrimination in any form harming the equal treatment under law for all citizens; and to support equal and full civil rights for all citizens, including gay, lesbian, and transgender citizens."

Georgetown County Democrat Party chairman Jamie Sanderson recently confirmed that the county party's web blog advertises and links to a website for a group that advocates gay and lesbian 'marriage' rights.

Sanderson said in the August 8th edition of the Georgetown Times regarding the marriage amendment issue, "The beauty of our Democratic Party is that we stand for choice. Ultimately, we are not the ones who decide what is right or wrong, nor are we to be judgmental of a person's lifestyle. . . The Democratic Party is the party for all people and we stand for the civil rights of those people at all times."

Miller faces Republican Jill Kelso for the House District 108 seat in November.

Democrat Miller's refusal to support S.C.'s Marriage Protection Amendment targeted by GOP radio ad

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, September 15, 2008
CONTACT: Tom Swatzel 843-222-7456

GEORGETOWN - The Georgetown County Republican Party started running a radio ad today that targets Democrat State Rep. Vida Miller's refusal to support South Carolina's voter-approved Marriage Protection Amendment that defined marriage as being between one man and one woman.

The ad says, "Seventy-seven percent of Georgetown County voters supported a Marriage Protection Amendment to our state constitution. But not liberal Democrat Vida Miller. In Columbia, Vida Miller made a motion to delay the amendment. It finally passed 96 to 3 -- with Vida Miller one of the tiny handful of liberals who refused to support it. With marriage still under threat by activist judges, tell Vida Miller to stop fighting against Georgetown County values in Columbia." Click here to listen to ad

Georgetown County Republican Party chairman Tom Swatzel said Miller's stand on the issue when it was debated in Columbia in 2005 "proves how liberal and out of step Rep. Miller is with the traditional family values shared by an overwhelming majority of Georgetown County and South Carolina voters."

"On the issue of protecting marriage, Rep. Miller stood with liberal activists and special interest groups in Columbia and against the widely-shared beliefs and values of the families and churches in Georgetown County," Swatzel said.

According to Swatzel, Miller can't be trusted to defend the state's marriage laws at a time when a California Supreme Court decision and the recent passage of a Massachusetts law that allows gay and lesbian marriage puts those laws at possible risk.

"The California decision and the Massachusetts law prove how right South Carolina and Georgetown County voters were to overwhelmingly approve a Marriage Protection Amendment to our state constitution, despite Democrat Vida Miller's opposition to constitutionally protecting marriage between one man and one woman," Swatzel said.

"Now that these decisions in other states pose possible threats to South Carolina's marriage laws in federal court, Georgetown County needs a state representative we can trust, who will fight to protect our state laws, not side with liberal activists and activist judges who want to radically redefine marriage," he said.

Swatzel said homosexual couples from the Palmetto State can travel to California or Massachusetts, get "married," then fly home to South Carolina and file federal lawsuits arguing that the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution requires the state to recognize marriages legally entered into in another state, in effect invalidating South Carolina's Marriage Protection Amendment and pre-existing one-man, one-woman marriage laws.

He noted that when the Marriage Protection Amendment appeared on the general election ballot in November 2006, 77 percent of voters statewide voted in favor of the proposal. The same percentage of voters in Georgetown County supported the amendment.

But before it could appear on the 2006 ballot, the amendment first had to win a two-thirds vote in each house of the General Assembly in 2005, which Miller did not support.

Miller resorted to a parliamentary procedure to successfully delay House consideration of the amendment in February 2005. When it finally came up for a vote the following month, Miller was one of only 21 House Democrats who refused to support placing the amendment on the ballot to allow South Carolina voters to decide the issue.

The state House Journal for February 24, 2005 recorded that on that day, when Marriage Protection Amendment supporters attempted to bring the amendment up for a vote, "Rep. Miller made the Point of Order that the (amendment) was improperly before the House for consideration since its number and title have not been printed in the House Calendar at least one statewide legislative day prior to second reading."

The House Journal for March 1, 2005 recorded Miller as present in the House on the day when the motion to place the amendment on the ballot was finally approved by a vote of 96 to 3, but in addition to the three Democrats who voted against allowing the people to vote on the issue, Miller joined 17 other Democrats present on the House floor who refused to cast a vote either way, abstaining on the issue.
Click here for House Journal excerpts

"By refusing to vote in favor of putting the amendment on the ballot, Vida Miller and other Democrats opposed even allowing the people of South Carolina and Georgetown County to vote on the issue," Swatzel said.

Swatzel said Miller's refusal to support the marriage amendment is consistent with the state Democrat Party platform, which says the party will "oppose any amendments to the South Carolina Constitution that codifies discrimination in any form harming the equal treatment under law for all citizens; and to support equal and full civil rights for all citizens, including gay, lesbian, and transgender citizens."
Click here for state Democrat Party platform

Miller's position is also consistent with that of the Georgetown County Democrat Party Swatzel says. County Democrat Party chairman Jamie Sanderson recently confirmed that the county party's web blog advertises and links to a website for a group that advocates gay and lesbian "marriage" rights. Sanderson said in the August 8th edition of the Georgetown Times regarding the marriage amendment issue, "The beauty of our Democratic Party is that we stand for choice. Ultimately, we are not the ones who decide what is right or wrong, nor are we to be judgmental of a person's lifestyle. . . The Democratic Party is the party for all people and we stand for the civil rights of those people at all times."

Miller faces Republican Jill Kelso in the November election.

A Reform Ticket

On Friday, John McCain introduced Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his choice for vice-president. Palin is a fiscal and social conservative. A mother of five, she's commander of the Alaska National Guard and is known for her government reform efforts.

Here's what the Wall Street Journal had to say in an editorial published on August 30th about the choice of Governor Palin:

A Reform Ticket

If any doubt remained that former fighter pilot John McCain loves to take unconventional risks, he put them to bed Friday by picking Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. Introduced in Dayton by Mr. McCain, Governor Palin swung the bat pretty well. We'll now see if she can hit curve balls.

It's a daring pick because Mrs. Palin has never faced national scrutiny and hasn't had to deal with foreign policy. Most VP choices are designed to do no harm, and we tend to agree with the maxim. Democrats are already saying they can't wait for Mrs. Palin's debate against "statesman" Joe Biden. On the other hand, the record shows that Sarah Palin's political career is a case study in taking on the big boys. We suspect her record of fighting the status quo was uppermost in John McCain's decision.

Barack Obama aside, Senator McCain's biggest problem is a Republican brand that has suffered -- both among independents and the GOP base -- from the party's business-as-usual mentality in Washington. The public wants change. This pick could prove Mr. McCain is serious about changing his party.

Sarah Palin's reform resume would be remarkable in any political career. She entered politics at 28, winning a seat on the Wasilla city council as an opponent of tax increases. After she defeated Wasilla's three-term incumbent mayor four years later, she swept the mayor's cronies out of the bureaucracy.

In 2003, Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski appointed her to the state's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Bear in mind that Mr. Murkowski had already served as junior U.S. Senator from Alaska for 22 years. Mr. Murkowski was junior senator for so long because Senator Ted Stevens (who was recently indicted for corruption) had lifetime tenure in the senior post.

Shortly after joining the oil and gas commission, Mrs. Palin commenced an ethics probe of the state's Republican party chairman, Randy Ruedrich, involving conflicts of interest with oil companies. The probe resulted in a $12,000 fine for the party chair.

She crossed party lines in 2004 to join a Democratic representative's ethics complaint over an international trade deal against the Republican Attorney General Gregg Renkes, who had ties to the Murkowski machine. Mr. Renkes resigned.

In late 2005, Mrs. Palin announced her run for Governor before then-Governor Murkowski had announced his intention to stand for re-election. In a three-way primary, Mrs. Palin got 51% to Mr. Murkowski's 19%. At the center of this campaign was a debate over competing proposals to build a natural gas pipeline across Alaska.

These columns wrote about Gov. Murkowski's smashing defeat by Mrs. Palin, noting that his pipeline proposal had been tainted by reports of sweetheart deals with energy companies. The editorial ended: "If Republicans are run out of Congress in November, one big reason will be that, like Mr. Murkowski, they have become far more comfortable running the government than reforming it." That is what happened, as disgusted GOP voters turned away from their own party and ceded control of Congress to the Democrats.

Against the odds, Mrs. Palin won that 2006 election against the state's former Democratic governor Tony Knowles. Most recently, she promoted the effort of her GOP lieutenant governor to unseat U.S. Congressman Don Young, who with Senator Stevens created the earmark that sank the GOP, the notorious "bridge to nowhere."

Experience?

For starters, we'd say Governor Palin's credentials as an agent of reform exceed Barack Obama's. Mr. Obama rose through the Chicago Democratic machine without a peep of push-back. Alaska's politics are deeply inbred and backed by energy-industry money. Mr. Obama slid past the kind of forces that Mrs. Palin took head on. This is one reason her selection -- despite its campaign risks -- seems to have been so well received by Republicans yesterday. They are looking for a new generation of leaders.

Don't expect this remarkable personal Palin narrative to get an Obama-like break from the national media. Their main focus will be her lack of experience, claiming it undercuts Mr. McCain's criticism of Barack Obama. One mispronounced foreign leader's name, and she's going to be hammered.

If she can survive this gantlet, Governor Palin could help Mr. McCain with some liabilities of his own. The alternative would have been a ticket of two familiar GOP names in a political cycle where the Democrats have seemed to be the party of energy and freshness. A self-described "hockey mom" with a commercial-fisherman husband, Governor Palin will have more credibility with families than a Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee. With energy supplies and prices one of the top issues, Alaska's Governor also should bring some first-hand realism to the debate over drilling and the environment.