An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

8 Years On, The Depressing Task Of Comparing Bush’s Words To His Deeds

01aaa_bush_2000.jpg

01aaa_bush_08.jpg

GEORGE WALKER BUSH: THEN AND NOW

I had long planned to post an abridged text of George Bush’s 2000 Republican National Convention acceptance speech closer to Inauguration Day and compare his words with his deeds, but the post-mortems already are flying fast and furious. This includes a lot of revisionist clap-trap from conservative bloggers whose heads remain firmly up their backsides, including drivel to the effect that because Bush “is a kind and decent man” the excesses and failures of the last eight years should be overlooked if not excused.

I happened to be in the hall when Bush accepted the nomination that steamy August night in Philadelphia and was horrified not just by the vacuity of his words but the knowledge that up on the podium was a resume without a man into which every neoconservative and other Republican with a burr in their saddle would pour their pet animosities, causes and policies.

It was going to be rocky four or eight years, but no one could have foreseen the scope and magnitude of the Bush administration’s epic failures, including its inability to confront every major crisis on its watch.

Following are excerpts from the speech in italics and what has transpired:

Mr. Chairman, delegates, and my fellow citizens . . . I accept your nomination. Thank you for this honor. Together, we will renew America’s purpose.

I am proud to have Dick Cheney at my side. He is a man of integrity and sound judgment, who has proven that public service can be noble service. America will be proud to have a leader of such character to succeed Al Gore as Vice President of the United States.

Cheney has been devoid of integrity and focused not on public service but leading an historic imperial power grab. He is viewed by many as a secrecy-obsessed megalomaniac at home and a war criminal aboard.

This is a remarkable moment in the life of our nation. Never has the promise of prosperity been so vivid. But times of plenty, like times of crisis, are tests of American character. Prosperity can be a tool in our hands — used to build and better our country. Or it can be a drug in our system — dulling our sense of urgency, of empathy, of duty.

These have indeed been prosperous years — for the wealthiest Americans and Wall Street tycoons — while the middle class has been brought to its knees as New Deal controls on financial institutions declared as onerous by the White House were stripped away, hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost and the dollar tanked.

Our current president embodied the potential of a generation. So many talents. So much charm. Such great skill. But, in the end, to what end? So much promise, to no great purpose. Little more than a decade ago, the Cold War thawed and, with the leadership of Presidents Reagan and Bush, that wall came down. But instead of seizing this moment, the Clinton/Gore administration has squandered it. We have seen a steady erosion of American power and an unsteady exercise of American influence. Our military is low on parts, pay and morale.

Today the military still is low on parts, pay and morale, and also is exhausted because it has had to fight two wars, one unnecessary that plundered resources from the one that was necessary.

America has a strong economy and a surplus. We have the public resources and the public will — even the bipartisan opportunities — to strengthen Social Security and repair Medicare. But this administration . . . did nothing. They had their moment. They have not led. We will lead.

By trying to tie Social Security to Wall Street and leaving Medicare in even more precarious shape than it had been before.

Greatness is found when American character and American courage overcome American challenges. . . . We heard it in the civil rights movement, when brave men and women did not say . . . “We shall cope,” or “We shall see.” They said . . . “We shall overcome.”

Tell that to the people of New Orleans. Tell that to the Hispanics who supported Bush in 2004 but fled in horror this year. Tell that to African-Americans who were told time and again, sometimes in shockingly unsubtle terms, that there is no place for them under the Republican’s shrunken Big Tent.

I will use this moment of opportunity to bring common sense and fairness to the tax code.

A consequence of which has been an economic collapse on a scale not seen since the Great Depression that has now spread around the world, as well as a budget deficit that future generations will be paying off.

We will give our military the means to keep the peace, and we will give it one thing more . . . . a commander-in-chief who respects our men and women in uniform, and a commander-in-chief who earns their respect.

Hundreds of thousands of veterans maimed physically and emotionally have to wait for months and even years to get care in a Veterans Administration and military hospital system that has been systematically bled. There has been an epidemic of suicides by those who could not get help to overcome their despair, as well as an epidemic of war profiteering by private contractors with close administration ties.

A generation shaped by Vietnam must remember the lessons of Vietnam.

Which were promptly forgotten in Iraq.

When America uses force in the world, the cause must be just, the goal must be clear, and the victory must be overwhelming.

The Bush Doctrine has led to further destabilization of the Middle East, America’s repute overseas is at low ebb, nearly 150,000 troops remain in Iraq six years after a war that was supposed to be over in weeks, and 2008 has been the deadliest year for U.S. troops in Afghanistan since 2001.

Now is the time, not to defend outdated treaties, but to defend the American people.

While ignoring the treaties and conventions that the administration found inconvenient to obey and embracing the use of torture.

My opponent . . . now leads the party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But the only thing he has to offer is fear itself.

How richly ironic that fear has been an oft-used cudgel by the president and vice president to consolidate power while suspending the rule of law, spying on its own citizens, and transforming the Justice Department into an arm of the Republican Party.

I don’t have enemies to fight. And I have no stake in the bitter arguments of the last few years. I want to change the tone of Washington to one of civility and respect.

Cheney. Rove. Rumsfeld. Gonzales. Wolfowitz. DeLay. Men who were all too competent at abusing power. Then there were incompetent toadies like Michael “Heck Of A Job, Brownie” Brown, indicted and convicted officials, missing emails, mysteriously shredded documents, and court orders and congressional subpoenas ignored.

As governor, I’ve made difficult decisions, and stood by them under pressure. I’ve been where the buck stops — in business and in government. I’ve been a chief executive who sets an agenda, sets big goals, and rallies people to believe and achieve them.

The consequence of whose failure has been an historically low approval rating.

When these problems aren’t confronted, it builds a wall within our nation. On the other side of the wall are poverty and prison, addiction and despair. And, my fellow Americans, we must tear down that wall.

It was called compassionate conservatism.

Behind every goal I have talked about tonight is a great hope for our country. A hundred years from now, this must not be remembered as an age rich in possessions and poor in ideals. Instead, we must usher in an era of responsibility.

The era will be remembered for a president and administration that governed with a deep cynicism, questioned the patriotism of those who did not agree with its policies, refused to acknowledge the challenges of climate change, willingly participated in the right-wing culture wars, never took responsibility for its manifold failures and has nearly brought the Party of Lincoln to its knees.

Americans live on the sunrise side of the mountain. The night is passing. And we are ready for the day to come.

A truly awful metaphor since the darkness was just beginning.

Thank you. And God bless you.

You too, Mr. President. The smirk will be gone but the memories will live on.

Photography: Declan McCullagh (top), Reuters

  • superdestroyer
    Shaun. In may want to notice that the election is over and the repulbicans are irrelevant. Why don't you embrace change and start challenging Democrats to hold up their promises and to run a government.

    Of course, that means you may have to criticize President-Elect Obama, so I know we can all count on many more posts talking about irrelevant Republicans. Maybe all the regular readers of TheModerateVoice should get into a poll to see how fast you post something after Jan 20 where you blame the Replubicans for a failure of the Obama Administration.

    When the Democrats have control of everything, writing about a party that will soon be out of business seems pointless.
  • kritt11
    There is no doubt that Bush was a weak and inept leader who failed us in times of crisis. I think in the minds of most Americans, who have been focused on the '08 election, and are now focused on the new administration, he has become practically invisible.

    For the next 9 weeks, George W. Bush will just go through the motions until he can return to Crawford. The state of denial that Bob Woodward wrote about will shield him from the magnitude of his massive failures, just as Daddy Bush and his friends have shielded him his entire life. Instead of regretting his mishaps, Bush will look to history to rescue his legacy. Somehow, I doubt historians will help him.
  • JSpencer
    Reading that speech is overworking my wince factor. Well Shaun, you know you are going to get the standard, kneejerk BDS accusations from the folks who have proven themselves incapable of seeing the last 8 years unfold, not just seeing, but seeing in any objective sort of way. Of course Bush failed miserably and the chasm between his rhetoric and promises is as wide as the Grand Canyon, and yet we know those supporters who have been his staunchest cheerleaders (and who now must secretly be harboring great disappointment) will continue to show a public face of surprise that people would just be so downright mean in their judgements about such a decent guy who only tried to do right. They conveniently forget all the planning and willful subversion of the trappings of democracy and civilized codes of conduct that far better men than he and Dick Cheney have tried to instill in our governement over the decades. Yes, there will be voices here who cry foul and call you far-left because you are unwilling to forgive and forget. Surely you must know that the word, "accountability" was invented by liberals solely to torment republicans. Get with the program Shaun!
  • Marlowecan
    S.D. said: "Of course, that means you may have to criticize President-Elect Obama, so I know we can all count on many more posts talking about irrelevant Republicans."

    Hahahaha. I had been wondering how the MSM and Left bloggers will cover Obama now that they have gotten him into office.
    Just as the mainstream comedians have found that jokes about Obama are unacceptable, so too will be any criticism of President Obama.

    There needs to be something to fill the columns. Acceptable topics include:
    (1) Bush is Evil.
    (2) Cheney is Eviller.
    (3) Republicans are divided and irrelevant (which does not preclude articles on topics 1 or 2.)
    (4) Republicans, evangelicals, and the military support President Obama and the Democrats in increasing numbers (these Republicans are relevant, thus topic 3 should not be referenced).
    (5) Everything bad is Bush's fault (see topic 1)

    There will be no talk on significant issues of the current day should they embarrass Obama.
    I recall how many good liberal folks here at TMV were outraged by the GOP focus on K Street and Abramoff etc.

    Surprisingly (well, not really) there has been a singular lack of interest in the fact that the Podesta who chairs Obama's transition is the brother of the Podesta who heads the hottest K-street lobby agency.
    Or on Obama's notable reversal on his once firm refusal of lobbyists being in his White House.

    I can see the imminent New York Times' headline in which, like Paul on the road to Damascus, they now see the light on the value of (Democratic) lobbyists:

    "The Podesta Group: The New Sherpas Guiding Inexperienced Legislators to Success"

    Fun times ahead. . . .
  • tommat
    Sweet. Now you have a template to use in 4 years when the Obamessiah is heading out of office. Look forward to it.
  • kritt11
    SD

    Its funny how conservatives, who largely blamed the failures of the last 8 years on Clinton, now can't wait to start blaming them on President-elect Obama-- who run anything at this point except his transition team!
  • Marlowecan
    Kritt said: "Instead of regretting his mishaps, Bush will look to history to rescue his legacy. Somehow, I doubt historians will help him."

    Kritt has, insightfully, gone to the heart of Shaun's technically superb endeavour here.

    As a journalist, Shaun is writing the first draft of history. His fisking of Bush will become part of the final kick at the can on the part of many bloggers and MSM.
    But who knows what history will ultimately say?

    I recently came across a Time magazine from 1988, which was incredibly harsh and dismissive of the presidency of Ronald Reagan.
    The terms used to describe the Bush presidency by his liberal opponents -- "bankrupt", "corrupt", "empty", "irrelevant", "immoral", "illegal", "militarist" -- all figure prominently in Time's columnists take down of Reagan.
    Yet even in the short span between the 1980s and today history has been kinder to Reagan than his contemporary liberal critics at Time magazine were.

    There is a great quote of Winston Churchill on this point: "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it."

    And he did. And it was.

    Who knows what it will be for Bush? I suspect, if the general pattern holds, it will be kinder than his current critics.
  • shaun
    Marlow touches on an important point which allows me to make a couple more of my own:

    First, history may judge Bush more kindly. That has been the case with Truman and Eisenhower, among other recent presidents, but it is difficult to imagine that there will be much revisionist thinking because of the simple fact that Bush created crises of his own that need not have occurred and was unable to confront other crises that did occur.

    Second, and I expect this will be greeted with derision by the folks like Dean Esmay (see link) who remain in deep denial about what has been done to this great country by such a boob (who in fact is a nice guy), I take no satisfaction at Bush's epic failures.

    I would much prefer to enter 2009 with a modicum of stability at home and abroad. I would much prefer that my neighborhood food shelter not keep running out of goods. I would much prefer that my friend the VA psyche nurse was not booked months in advance for home visits of Iraq/Afghan war vets who are mental basket cases. I would much prefer that my boss's 401(k) plan not taken a $100,000 crap. And so on and so forth . . .
  • undertoad
    The more partisan an analysis of history is, the less interesting it is.
  • donsingleton
    You certainly seem bitter and vindictive. I hate t see what you would have sait if McCain had won.
  • superdestroyer
    kritt,

    I think that TMV has already how an article about what a great manager Obama already is. So it is hard to say that he is ont running anything. If the first few days of the transition are any indications, the media will have to get used to a large number of trial balloons. How many names have already been link about cabinet posts?
  • Marlowecan
    Shaun's comment is interesting as it presents an array of points for how history will view Bush.

    "I would much prefer that my boss's 401(k) plan not taken a $100,000 crap."

    Most folks have lost money in the financial collapse. However, will Bush be blamed by history for this?
    Some losses were paper losses that will be recovered when the market upswings.
    Also, it is a global crisis . . . and nationally the Democrats (e.g., Barney Frank, Rahm Emanuel) have their fingerprints all over the corpses of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac.

    I suspect that . . . as with the recession of the 1980s, which Reagan got a pass on as it ended the plague of stagflation . . . Bush will get a pass on the economy as well.
    Similarly, social problems tend to be ignored down the road.

    The KEY problem of Bush in American history, I would argue, is Iraq.

    I have always been amazed . . . as a non-American conservative with a very left American partner . . . how ambivalent ALL you Americans tend to be about your empire.
    Of course, you have an empire.
    The United States has maintained an imperium over most of the world for a half-century now.
    Echoing the Roman empire, the US military has even divided the globe into what are effectively proconsular regions. It does not matter that there are sovereign states in those regions.

    But most Americans seem to be reluctant imperialists. You want the Middle East to be a certain way . . . and you want low-priced oil . . . but you are reluctant to exert the force to attain those ends.

    Were Bush a British or a French imperialist, there is little doubt history would have judged his Iraq adventure positively. Consider how fondly the British look back on the Raj.

    But Shaun may be right . . . American historians may likely be more critical of Bush as a neo-imperialist.
  • AustinRoth
    Marlo -

    What? Nothing about Rove?
  • DLS
    Little ol' me, I'll actually go easy on Shaun this time. After all, on another thread he pretty much warned me not to expect normality yet. Not with several weeks still to go before The Bestowing of Sainthood from a PC Pope in addition to awarding in advance of the next Nobel Peace Prize -- oops, both are somewhat premature, even in His case -- Inauguration Day 2009.

    What's most noteworthy right now is Obama's disappearance (fleeing) from the Senate. He has chosen to exploit his emotional and political "capital" nation-wide (there likely are many people in this country who didn't just vote religiously for Obama, but also who actually believed his "OFFICE of the PRESIDENT-ELECT" lecturn advertising on the lectern recently, for example) and devote his time mainly to forming his Cabinet and the rest of his team to start work next year. (Actually, he is currently in the process of learning how to do this; what has been revealed to the media is awfully clumsy or ham-handed. What does gun ownership have to do with qualification for office in his administration, for example?)

    Obama is choosing to "punt" (Marlowe: US-style-football expression -- cede possession of the football to the other team, kicking it downfield to hopefully force the other team to begin in poor field position) and leave the current, present bailout and economic problems in the hands of the current Congress and the Bush administration. I would not be surprised if Obama in fact discussed just this action with President Bush during their private meeting. Obama may have been alerted early as well as to the unlikelihood of good UAW-payoff bailout prospects this year for Detroit, and may choose to wait and to "do something better" early next year after taking office. (Worse for us, of course.) Note that the more stupid and scummy and sinister things being sought by the Dems (bailout with no serious conditions; targeting only management, not the overpaid UAW; no demand for business change, no management sacrifices, no immediate end to the JOBS bank and other UAW parasitic idiocies that merit no public money whatsoever, and viability plans before being given handouts worse than what is sought for Wall Street; idiotic sappy "green" political demands being made of the companies; fascistic state ownership stakes in the companies*, et cetera) can be floated publicly and tested for public approval or disapproval without tainting an absent Obama.

    In addition, it allows Obama's successor in the Senate (likely, Jesse Jackson, Jr. from the House) to be emplaced there before Obama begins in office next year. Go ahead and do the change now, the logic indicates.

    I suspect that many of my fellow GOP-leaning voters (lesser of two evils) accept the logic of the Obama "disappearance" and this is where Shaun's latest complaints comes in, though he didn't see it as well as some other users here. The nonsense with the Wall Street bailout (which if we view it most negatively, is to date first one, and now a second, way of misdirecting public money to Wall Street insiders) is simply something that is directly associated with the Bush administration, and Obama need not touch it in any way. He can let the current Dems test public opinion for many different candidate loser-vote-buying actions that are contemplated, both with banks and mortgages, and with the Detroit dinosaurs (the healthy US auto industry has been deliberately ignored and avoided in discussions except from a few GOP critics of the stupid Detroit bailout). Then he can exploit those that get the most approval or show the most appeal (or that benefit his special interests like the unions the most) and make "more progress" more quickly next year.

    In the meantime, the sickening bailout of Wall Street is indeed a sad final part of the Bush legacy.


    * The Dems made an ambiguous statement recently that is _scary_ to decent, normal people: they referred to "new" directors of the Detroit companies. That can mean replacing the worthless boards of directors the companies have now; nobody objects to that, because the companies, under their directorship as well as management, have failed. But "new" can also mean the installation of "new" as in _additional_ directors, namely federal officials or agents. This is sinister as well as fascistic. Idiotic political demands such as "green vehicles" that we've heard of are far from the worst that can be conceived of, with direct federal-government ownership and _control_.

    Equity shares are bad enough! NO AMERICAN LEYLAND. ("AmCars" [gag])
  • Marlowecan
    AR said: "What? Nothing about Rove?"

    Hahahaha...Rove will be forgotten to history. We all know that.

    When the last Kossack dies in his retirement village . . . his BDS ravaged lobes unable to process anything . . . his nurses will likely wonder who was this "Rove" he was muttering of with his last drooling breath.

    Like "Rosebud" it will be a forgotten footnote ("Do you think it was a favorite pet? Was he trying to say "Rover"?")

    History obscures the spear-carriers. . .and elevates the princes.
  • Marlowecan
    DLS said: "Obama is choosing to "punt" (Marlowe: US-style-football expression -- cede possession of the football to the other team. . . "

    Hahaha...DLS, I am not totally ignorant of the strange rituals of you natives.

    (Though, anthropologically speaking, I find what you call "football's" continual bum-patting, and the peculiar dances in the end zone, very odd :)
  • shaun
    Marlow:

    You make a huge and widely overlooked point in noting that we Yanks have been uneasy about our "empire." I would argue that is historic and can be traced at least to the Great White Fleet.

    I count myself among the ambivalent. Being powerful and using that power discretely and wisely is perhaps the greatest non-domestic challenge for a president and commander in chief since WW2, and I claim no special insight, only unease.

    The signal failing of neoconservatism, which as you imply translated neatly into the greatest failure of the Bush administration, is that its foreign policy was based on a misreading of history, which combined with decades of accumulated grudges and most especially Bush 41's failure to march all the way to Baghdad, was a recipe for disaster.

    This is going to be a singular challenge for Obama because he cannot shrink from the real possibility that there will have to be further U.S. military intervention abroad. Congo comes to mind, no?
  • jeff_pickens
    I think it fair to hold Obama to his word. The template of rhetorical political-speak should be fine to use. I won't begrudge accountability on either end.

    My hope: accountability. President Bush, and moreover our elected Congress, have cooperatively destroyed the processes of government that assure accountability and checks and balances.

    Yes, hold Obama's administration to the accountability fire. Fair enough.

    History will be kinder? I couldn't care less. I'll be dead. Additionally, though, I find it more constructive to use recent relevant reality to learn from our mistakes, and to create solutions here and now.

    Another hope: the end to "anti-American," "un-patriotic," "with us or against us" mentality that comfortably wraps the Republican party in it's element of security. I don't think the memory of Rove will die a peaceful death. As long as I live I'll fight against that political-speak, and will never support any candidate that uses it as a political tool, either party. As big as the failings of a Bush legacy might be, I consider the dividing of America and his constant campaigning (versus governing) his biggest fallacy.
  • DLS
    Meanwhile, in Normal-People-Land, the saddest thing we're now seeing following the fiasco and farce with the Wall Street Bailout isn't the evil Democratic demands for forced lending (that is a joke, and predictable), but instead the speech by President Bush at the Manhattan Institute admonishing Washington and advising it not to intervene in the free marketplace.

    * * *

    Marlowe: The odd end-zone and rest-of-field misbehavior extends to other sports and other forms of entertainment (including "news"), that now commonly features gimmicky graphics and stupid sound effects. (Not just Fox, but CNN's political shows, for example. Arrgh.)

    * * *

    As for Shaun's degeneracy, well, eight years is a stretch, but this last several weeks, we can understand, and in my case, he warned me yesterday (at least that's when I managed to see it).

    Though it is fun to ask --

    How much worse would people like Shaun have been had George W. Bush succeeded that other object of degeneracy, none other than Ronald Reagan?

    I think we need to apply the "Ronald-Reagan, Official Olympic" naming nonsense to the case of George W. Bush just to deal justice to the Shauns of this world. It's the George Bush Washington Monument on George Bush Constitution Avenue by which you might go on a sightseeing journey before going to George Bush Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. (The latter is certainly more acceptable and tolerable to normal people than "Barack Obama - Hillary Rodham Washington, DC, Global Transportation Center and Complex.")
  • DLS
    "My hope: accountability."

    I believe you'll get it with Obama, and by extension, the Dems, next year. If not in the media, among those of us who are awake, because they're not only in power, but _firmly_ so, and they no longer have bogus GOP-related excuses on hand for _their_, the Democrats', failures.

    Obama's "accountability" specifically begins with some equivocation about that word and concept -- the UAW, the "greens," the wackier activists on the "progressive" fringes, who did their job as foot soldiers for Obama, will hold him "accountable," to their dreams and demands, right from the beginning. (No telling what the reaction will be when the dreams are replaced by reality.)
  • Silhouette
    Dubya suffers from malignant narcissistic personality disorder, or "NPD". If you look closely at the disorder, you'll see how closely its hallmarks match the seemingly in explicable behavior of the sitting (lame duck) president.

    Whatever comes out of their mouth doesn't even remotely have to reflect observable facts. The truth is concocted soley within the mind of the sufferer and the rest of the world had better go along with that...or else... (hence, Iraq).

    They often aspire to positions of power since they believe that the rest of the entire world exists soley for their amusement or benefit. Other people have no real value, only ephemeral as it serves the narcissist's current agenda. Once that agenda has been served and the person no longer fits the current scheme, they are discarded like used tissue (Colin Powell. and a host of others).

    I urge anyone who strains to understand the Dubya phenomenon to study up on NPD. And while you do, you might want to tie your jaw shut because I guarantee you it will be falling on the ground.
  • JSpencer
    Reading through these responses suggests to me that for some folks the concept of learning from history is not a particularly desirable one... that is, unless said history is favorable to one's perceived "side". The fact is, if people aren't self-aware enough to understand their own motives and biases, then they aren't about to learn anything, regardless of their ideology. Apologies to those who see this as speaking the obvious.
  • kathyedits
    If anything, Shaun understates the damage done by the Bush presidency. For one thing, I would not use the term "nice guy" to characterize a man who was as eager to start a war that was not necessary as Bush was, or who not just authorized, but embraced, a system of organized cruelty toward people in U.S. custody that previously was the province of countries we considered our enemies.

    Which is not a criticism of Shaun's piece. It's just to say that he was a great deal less harsh in his assessment than he could, with justification, have been.
  • Silhouette
    kathyedits,

    Cruelty is one of the biggest hallmarks of NPD. Really readers, take a minute and read up on the disorder. Just google "Narcissistic personality disorder" and read the descriptions of George Dubya Bush.
  • jeff_pickens
    On another note, "A positive aspect of the Bush legacy:" by Glenn Greenwald

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
  • DLS
    "Dubya suffers from malignant narcissistic personality disorder, or 'NPD.' "

    -- he or she wrongly says, stepping deliberately around Bill Clinton
  • kritt11
    For me, the worst part of the last 8 years was the faux patriotism that was exhibited by Bush and his supporters which covered up his real motives for the war and its excesses. A true patriot would have united the country by putting petty differences aside and by asking all for equal sacrifice.

    The faux flag wavers tried to use the terrorist threat to enrich wealthy donors, award huge no-bid contracts and keep the defense contractors in business. The troops were used when they were of use politically, then abandoned as soon as they became veterans.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC