LowerCaseRepublican

Most animal rights activists discount PETA a lot just as many environmentalists discount the ELF. Hey, even extreme right wingers discount guys like Rush Limbaugh etc. There's idiots in every movement [just like Bush being a Republican and having policies that go against the Republican party line] but don't paint with such a wide brush that you label the entire animal rights movement on the actions of one organization.

Unlike Bush, Dean didn't want to commit ground forces in Bosnia to force an overthrow. Also, I'd be interesting in how USA Today got this letter in the first place.

Understatement of the year on SoxTalk.

I got B, D, E, H, I, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, V, W, Y, Z Edit: now have B, C, D, E, H, I, J, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, V, W, Y, Z

Does anybody find it funny that the Christian Right™ rants to no end about radical fundamentalist religion and the evils of it...yet they pressure Bush into giving $1.5 billion to promote heterosexuality because of their radical fundamentalist beliefs? I guess the irony hasn't hit them yet. $1.5 billion to promote heterosexual marriages. Gee, how about we get $1.5 billion for something beneficial like education or working to repay the veterans' benefits that the Bush administration cut...or even putting some of that money towards caring for the troops who have Gulf War Syndrome since the US government doesn't want to pay for their medical needs. Between this and a base on the Moon how can any traditional Republican think that Bush is a 'conservative'?

What two [or more] consenting adults do in their bedroom is their business. The Christian Right™ is all for freedom of expression and love...as long as it's a heterosexual relationship and the expression is fundamentalist Christian in belief. And this is a question that mmmmbeer raised before. How is Bush going for smaller government with this? I thought that was one of the tenets of the Republican party.

I'm pretty sure he means a future generation of terrorists, ie civilians who had family members killed by US bombing campaigns etc. Since our invasions, membership in Al Qaeda has had a spiked increase.

Well yeah, the US wouldn't sell him any more weapons.

Illini, the no-fly zone enforcement bombings by the US/UK were every few days. [it's a lot more bombing than every few months...I did a lot of research on it for a couple papers I had to write: It was on average weekly to bi-weekly] And Clinton, there was no hope in Clinton. As my favorite comedian/philosopher Bill Hicks said in one of his bits: "Clinton? There's no hope in that guy. I knew he became one of the boys when he shot 22 $3 million each cruise missiles into Iraq killing 6 innocent people in retaliation for the supposed attempt on George Bush's life by Saddam Hussein. I have a better idea. Why don't we kill Bush and then tell the Iraqis 'That's how you do it you f***ers! Don't f*** with us!' And if Bush is killed, there's no loss of innocent life." Also, during the 2000 debate, as the Daily Show showed when they had President Bush vs Governor Bush in a debate, Bush said that he would not use the military for nation building. Also, the morning of 9/11 before we knew who attacked us, Rummy wanted us to go strike Iraq for it, even if they were not responsible...or so says ABC News. But why attack Iraq when we can get a base on the moon?

I recently read a text, "Affirmations of a Dissenter" by Bishop Joseph Sprague. I especially like his chapter that discusses exactly what CW says, that homosexuality is not specifically mentioned in the original translations of the Bible, it was simply a term used by more modern interpreters. I haven't read it in a while, but I believe the original term was for what would be considered devient sexuality [i.e. incest, rape, beastiality etc.] and not solely homosexuality. And my .02 on gay marriage - If right wing groups, like the Christian Coalition, want to have 'Marriage = One Man + One Woman" then maybe they would like to explain the bigamy of the Bible [case in point: Jacob having 2 wives etc.] It's simply the fact that 'homosexuality' is not a correct translation. And I'm VERY f***ING SURPRISED that Dick Cheney would support an amendment prohibiting gay marriage even though he has a lesbian daughter.

To Brett Favre [in honor of his credit card commercial]: "I would have avoided the near sack and not have thrown an interception that lost the game."

I am a pretty big Kucinich supporter although I do like a lot of the stuff the Libertarians say about personal freedoms [i differ vastly on economic freedoms that they believe in] I think the Dems nod is gonna end up going to Dean or Clark since most recent polls show them only a few points apart. I think a Clark getting the nod with Dean VP would be the best for the Democrats. I mean, there's not much Rove can spin on Clark because Clark can always go to the "Well, I served my country while Bush went AWOL" argument going to Bush's willpower and focus on defending the country. This leaves Dean open to do what he's doing now, going after the hypocricy in policy, showing the shortfalls of NCLB etc. and maybe that'll bring Cheney out of his 'undisclosed location' haha. If they don't put the Libertarian candidate on, you can always write in. I concur that 'slash' is an inaccurate statement.

I4E, I'm just stating the hypocricy of the US in our Iraq policy. I dunno if you read the Boondocks but there is one that shows Huey watching TV and the news reporter says something along the lines of: "President Bush said it will take nothing short of completely disregarding the United Nations to show Saddam that he cannot disregard the United Nations."

I saw this in comments on Fark about the game and was laughing pretty hard: "Any other Giants fans out there still laughing at the picture of Jason Sehorn falling down trying to cover Steve Smith on the winning play vs Panthers...How the hell does that guy still have a job?" "Rush Limbaugh: The media is desirous of a white cornerback..."

Flash, why do you have to be such an anti-Favreite?

I just love Vermeil's face in this photo.

http://www.amconmag.com/1_19_04/article3.html The American Conservative February 2, 2004 By Charles Goyette *Charles Goyette was named "Best Talk Show Host of 2003" by the Phoenix New Times. Clear Channel gags an antiwar conservative. "Imagine these startling headlines with the nation at war in the Pacific six months after Dec. 7, 1941: "No Signs of Japanese Involvement in Pearl Harbor Attack! Faulty Intelligence Cited; Wolfowitz: Mistakes Were Made." Or how about an equally disconcerting World War II headline from the European theater: "German Army Not Found in France, Poland, Admits President; Rumsfeld: ÔOops!', Powell Silent; ÔBring 'Em On,' Says Defiant FDR." It seems to me that when there is reason to go to war, it should be self-evident. The Secretary of State should not need to convince a skeptical world with satellite photos of a couple of Toyota pickups and a dumpster. And faced with a legitimate casus belli, it should not be hard to muster an actual constitutional declaration of war. Now in the absence of a meaningful Iraqi role in the 9/11 attack and the mysterious disappearance of those fearsome Weapons of Mass Destruction, there might be some psychic satisfaction to be had in saying, "I told you so!" But it sure isn't doing my career as a talk-show host any good. The criterion of self-evidence was only one of dozens of objections I raised before the elective war in Iraq on my afternoon drive-time talk show on KFYI in Phoenix. Many of the other arguments are familiar to readers of The American Conservative. But the case for war was a shape-shifter, skillfully morphing into a new rationale as quickly as the old one failed to withstand scrutiny. For a year before the war, I scrambled to keep up with the latest incarnations of the neocon case. Most were pitifully transparent and readily exposed. (Besides the aluminum tubes and the trailers that had Bush saying, "Gotcha," does anyone remember those death-dealing drones? Never have third-world, wind-up, rubber-band, balsa-wood airplanes instilled so much fear in so many people.) Still, my management didn't like my being out of step with the president's parade of national hysteria, and the war-fevered spectators didn't care to be told they were suffering illusions. So after three years, I was replaced on my primetime talk show by the Frick and Frack of Bushophiles, two giggling guys who think everything our tongue-tied president does is "Most excellent, dude!" I have been relegated to the later 7Ð10 p.m. slot, when most people, even in a congested commuting market like Phoenix, are already home watching TV. Why did this happen? Why only a couple of months after my company picked up the option on my contract for another year in the fifth-largest city in the United States, did it suddenly decide to relegate me to radio Outer Darkness? The answer lies hidden in the oil-and-water incompatibility of these two seemingly disconnected phrases: "Criticizing Bush" and "Clear Channel." Criticizing Bush? Well then, must I be some sort of rug-chewing liberal? Not even close. As a boy, I stood on the grass in a small Arizona town square when Barry Goldwater officially began his 1964 presidential run. And I was there for the last official event of the Goldwater campaign. My job was to recruit and manage my fellow junior-high and high-school conservatives in a phone bank operation, calling supporters to fill up as many buses as possible to help pack the stadium -- a show of strength for the nation's television viewers. Of course that's an insignificant role to play in a presidential campaign, but it was pretty heady stuff for a 14-year-old kid from Flagstaff. I broke with Goldwater in 1976 over his decision to back Gerald Ford instead of Ronald Reagan for the Republican presidential nomination. Ford was a perfectly decent, if ordinary, Republican (who could have taught the big-spending W. Bush a thing or two about the use of the veto!). But I took my conservatism seriously. Reagan was clearly the champion of the conservative cause. Perhaps I'm just anti-military? No. I am proud of my honorable service and of the Army Commendation Medal I was awarded. I also spent a good deal of time in the 1980s as a member of the Speakers Bureau of High Frontier, promoting Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, a defense policy unlike today's in that it was actually designed to defend the American people. I have been a Republican precinct committeeman; my county Republican Party elected me its "Man of the Year" in 1988; I have written speeches for conservative candidates and office holders; and I have been employed by statewide and national political organizations and campaigns, including the National Conservative Political Action Committee. Despite my disappointment in Goldwater for not supporting Reagan, I was there when a small band of the faithful -- no more than four or five of us -- gathered for a potluck dinner to support the creation of a brand-new public-policy think tank named after "Mr. Conservative." The enterprise blossomed, and I was honored several months ago to serve as Master of Ceremonies for the Goldwater Institute's 15th Anniversary Gala. I can assure you then that my criticism of Bush has been on the basis of long-held conservative principles. It begins with respect for the wisdom of the Founders and the Constitution's division of power and delegation of authority, and extends to an adherence to the principles of governmental restraint and fiscal prudence. It proved to be a message that was more than a little inconvenient for my employer. Clear Channel Communications, the 800-pound gorilla of the radio business, owns an astonishing 1,200 stations in 50 states, including Newstalk 550 KFYI in Phoenix, where I do the afternoon program É or did until last summer. The principals of Clear Channel, a Texas-based company, have been substantial contributors to George W. Bush's fortunes since before he became president. In fact, Texas billionaire Tom Hicks can be said to be the man who made Bush a millionaire when he purchased the future president's baseball team, the Texas Rangers. Tom Hicks is now vice chairman of Clear Channel. Clear Channel stations were unusually visible during the war with what corporate flacks now call "pro-troop rallies." In tone and substance, they were virtually indistinguishable from pro-Bush rallies. I'm sure the administration, which faced a host of regulatory issues affecting Clear Channel, was not displeased. Criticism of Bush and his ever-shifting pretext for a first-strike war (what exactly was it we were pre-empting anyway?) has proved so serious a violation of Clear Channel's cultural taboo that only a good contract has kept me from being fired outright. Roxanne Cordonier, a radio personality at Clear Channel's WMYI 102.5 in Greenville, S.C., didn't have it as good. Cordonier, who worked under the name Roxanne Walker, was the South Carolina Broadcasters Association's 2002 Radio Personality of the Year. That apparently wasn't enough for Clear Channel. Her lawsuit against the company alleges that she was belittled on the air and reprimanded by her station for opposing the invasion of Iraq. Then she was fired. They couldn't really fire me, at least without paying me a substantial sum of money, but I was certainly belittled on the air for opposing the war. The other KFYI talk-show hosts -- so bloodthirsty that they made Bush apologists and superhawks Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity sound moderate -- vilified me almost daily. As a former radio-station owner myself, it was a little hard to believe management would allow one of their key hosts to be trashed day in and day out on their own airwaves. After all, we sell radio time on the basis of its ability to influence people's behavior. A wiser programming approach would have been to showcase me as an object of curiosity, with a challenge to listeners to see if they could discover where I had gone wrong or how I was missing the imminent threat Iraq posed to the American people. No doubt the constant vilification I received and my heterodoxy on the war cost me audience during the interlude. It was certainly enough to get pictures of me morphing into those of the French president posted on the Free Republic Web site during the "freedom fries" silliness. A banner there read, "Boycott Charles Chirac Goyette at KFYI radio Phoenix, AZ! Protest against the Charles Goyette Show from 4-7pm at KFYI for his leftist subervsive [sic] Bush-bashing rants. Turn off KFYI radio for the Charles Goyette Show! No liberal scum talk shows on KFYI!" Radio does provoke people, doesn't it? One Clear Channel executive had me take an unexpected day off for the sin of reporting the breaking news on March 27, 2003, that neocon hawk Richard Perle, of the Defense Policy Board, had relinquished his chairmanship under scrutiny of his business dealings and for blaspheming that Donald Rumsfeld was the worst Secretary of Defense since Robert McNamara. So great were these transgressions that the radio gods themselves must have been aghast at my impiety. I explained in conference-room confrontations that both positions were completely respectable points of view. The comparison with McNamara had been made repeatedly in subsequent days in the mainstream media. I specifically cited "The McLaughlin Group" the following Friday and the New York Times the following Monday, and in describing the Perle resignation, I relied upon details from both Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker and from syndicated columnist Arianna Huffington. "Well, then," they explained, the problem was "the emotionalism" of my remarks. Imagine that, emotionalism in talk radio? I reminded them that for years we had run promotions identifying KFYI as "the Place with More Passion," where the Charles Goyette Show was positioned as "Fearless Talk Radio!" Clear Channel made it clear -- "With you, I feel like I'm managing the Dixie Chicks," said my program director -- that they would have liked to fire me anyway. While a well-drafted contract made that difficult, it did not prevent them from tucking me away outside prime time. So I'm a talk-show war casualty. My contract expires in a few more months and -- my iconoclasm being noted -- it is not likely it will be renewed. Among the survivors at my station: one host who wanted to nuke Afghanistan (he bills himself as "your voice of reason and moderation") and another who upon learning that 23-year-old Mideast peace activist Rachel Corrie had been run over by an Israeli bulldozer shouted, "Back up and run over her again!" As he doesn't quite get some of the important distinctions in these debates, such as that Iranians should not be called Arabs, we would hope that he's not taken too seriously. Likewise my replacements in the afternoon drive slot, brought in for glamorizing the war and billed as "The Comedy Channel meets Talk Radio." If you remember the "Saturday Night Live" skit "Superfans" with Mike Myers and Chris Farley -- "Who's stronger, God or da Bulls?" "Da Bulls!" -- then you get the idea. Only instead of "da Bulls," it's three hours every afternoon of "da Bush!" Expect to hear more insightful topics like "So Who's Tougher: Michael Jordan or Donald Rumsfeld?" I've seen how war fever infects a people. And I was in a no-win situation, with an audience pre-screened by virtue of 11 hours a day of screaming war frenzy -- unlistenable for the uninfected -- that surrounded my time slot. So I knew there would be a personal price for opposing the war, and I was prepared to pay it. But as a lover of the rough and tumble of public debate and the contest of ideas, I am disappointed at what is happening in my industry. At least at Clear Channel, there's only one word for the belief that talk radio is still a fair and fearless search for the truth: "Un-Bull-ieveable!

NUKE, did you not see the polls before the war that over 60% of the US was against a war, and more than that against a pre-emptive strike without a UN resolution? He IS slashing and burning education by underfunding his own bill then putting draconian measures in place so schools have to spend more money trying to meet his test requirements instead of using them to teach kids things they actually need to know. He increased funding 11% but when you look at the bill, the amount he gave is drastically under the amount needed for schools to adequately meet the requirements given by NCLB. It is for this reason, that even with they funds they can't meet the requirements, that many schools are opting out. The Taliban is wiped out? HAHAHAHA. That's rich. That's why 30% of India and a good majority of Pakistan believes in the ideology of the Taliban, especially the far right wing of the military there that has a lot of the power. And even in Afghanistan, seeing how we don't have control of anything outside Kabul, the Taliban has been coming back together. We bagged the 'Butcher of Baghdad' with no mention that we armed him with the weapons that he could carry out his destruction on his own people with...and when it happened we never said a goddamn word. And hey, if we're gonna get technical with Kurds as freedom fighters maybe you can explain to me why we arm Iraqi Kurds to fight Saddam because he is killing them, destroying their villages etc. Yet we arm the Turkish army and declare Turkish Kurds "terrorists" because they fight back against the Turkish military when the Turks come in and destroy the 3000 villages to blow up "Kurdistan". Geo-politics involving the US seems to be quite absurd. And Nuke, Libya was paying reparations for Pan Am flight over Lockerbie a long time ago and that wasn't a Bush accomplishment. Iran isn't complying with a lot of the UN measures and they're not "Oh look at what the US did, we must bend over and let the President Bush f*** us in the ass and do whatever the hell he wants." They're pissed...the people of Iraq are pissed, the people of Afghanistan are pissed and Al Qaeda has shown a marked increase in membership. How exactly are we curbing terrorism? Or is it that Richard Perle said that it doesn't matter that we didn't find WMD in Iraq? That sonofab****! We kill 500 Americans and countless thousands of Iraqi civilians for "Saddam is gonna attack us with WMD!" as a rallying cry for war. That f***ing sonofab****! And Nuke, here's a tip for you...N. Korea has been willing to talk for a long time. They are using nukes as a bargaining chip to get money, food and other concessions from the world community. There is no intent to nuke anybody. Anyone who thinks that needs to have their f***ing head examined. Kim Jong Il might be crazy but he's not stupid.

Nuke, I did answer it. Read the article: Under Title 1 of The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, most federal education aid is directed to schools in poor areas. These are precisely the schools that cannot say "No thanks" to any federal aid; and they are the schools that will have the hardest time complying with NCLB. That's why the impoverished city of Reading, Pennsylvania, which is already on the NCLB probation list, is suing to protect itself from the clutches of that law. Due to the underfunding of NCLB, many school districts cannot meet the demands set on them by NCLB, even if they get the federal funds. And actually, your showing of the author being from "my side" proves you didn't read the entire article that I linked in the post to mmmmbeer. The end of the article attacks many Democrats. It is possible to just see that NCLB is not good without being a staunch leftist.

He's not talking about you, per se, but more like the DeLays, Santorums etc.

You're not alone in that.

I have two big marijuana books to read: Marijuana Myths... that I mentioned earlier and The Emperor Wears No Clothes by Jack Herer. The Emperor has like EVERYTHING you could possibly want to know about marijuana and cannabis...entire chapters on how it can be used as medicine. In Marijuana Myths, I haven't read it yet but in the table of contents there are chapters like "Marijuana and the Brain", "Marijuana Motivation and Performance", "Marijuana Memory and Cognition", "Marijuana Psychology and Insanity". The entire book takes myths people have about marijuana and just shows the results of scientific tests that, in effect show the myths are unfounded. The Buddhist book is simply an overview of the basic tenets of Buddhism and uses examples and the such to show why they believe what they believe. I don't think it's written by any specific school of thought on Buddhism, just a basic view of "This is what Buddhists believe". It's a pretty interesting read. Also, on the topic sort of religion, have you read anything by Jiddu Krishnamurti? I started reading a little bit of him before break but didn't get to finish the book before I had to take it back to the library.

Body Count...yes, I know it came out a long time ago and it sucks pretty badly but I just can't stop listening to it, haha.

NUKE, this is from the Common Dreams article link I posted in my response to mmmmbeer. That fixing schools would ever be the signature achievement of a 21st century Republican president was a dubious proposition from the onset. Why's that? It's pretty simple: the federal government provides only about seven percent of the budgets for America's schools. How much is tinkering with that seven percent going to help? What chance is there that seven would turn into fourteen? None. And that's what Republicans believe in, right? It's called federalism. Parents and communities know best how to educate their kids, or at least they should have the right to do it themselves. Bureaucrats in Washington can only hinder, not help. Thus runs the credo that led so many foot soldiers of the Reagan-Gingrich era to attempt to abolish the Department of Education. Well, NCLB turned that philosophy of federalism on its head, and put a dunce cap on it. The basic idea of the legislation wasn't to give school and towns more resources, but to force them to comply with detailed standards - standards set by the feds - or face a slew of penalties and consequences. Accountability was to come from those faceless bureaucrats in Washington, not parents. It is certainly the most intrusive federal foray ever into public schools. And for Republicans, it was philosophically incoherent (that's why more Democrats voted for NCLB than Republicans). It is, however, a philosophic incoherence schools from Key West to Nome must heed. Their third-graders through eighth-graders, at least 95 per cent of them, must take federally mandated tests each year. And if all the sub-groups in the school - boys, girls, brown, white and green - don't show annual improvement, a chain of requirements launches, beginning with forced permission for kids to go to other schools in the district and ending with mandated dumping of school management. It gets worse. These mandated changes cost money but the law doesn't give the schools more money. Systems would have to pay to transport those kids who chose to go to "higher performing" schools. The failing schools have to pay for more teacher training and tutoring for low-income kids. Where's that money supposed to come from? Republican fundraisers? When NCLB passed, schools were told they would get some more federal dollars to help comply. But the program has not been close to fully funded, as the president essentially admitted on anniversary day when he said he fund boost his 2005 budget request by about $2.1 billion, which critics will say isn't nearly enough. NCLB has become a dreaded "unfunded mandate" as they call it in political science seminars. And increasingly, schools and states are looking for ways to tell the feds to take their unfunded mandates and stick them up their appropriations committees. A few schools and school districts in Vermont and Connecticut have already told the federal government to keep its money, they're not going to comply with NCLB. Some schools in Virginia are debating doing the same. But these are schools in relatively prosperous spots. Under Title 1 of The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, most federal education aid is directed to schools in poor areas. These are precisely the schools that cannot say "No thanks" to any federal aid; and they are the schools that will have the hardest time complying with NCLB. That's why the impoverished city of Reading, Pennsylvania, which is already on the NCLB probation list, is suing to protect itself from the clutches of that law. And some Republican state legislators in Utah, where Republicans reign, are pushing legislation that would have the state opt out of NCLB and pass up all federal education bucks.

mmmmmbeer, you could always vote Libertarian. I don't know if they are running a candidate in IL, but it is worth looking into since you seem to agree with a lot of their ideas [smaller federal government etc] As for the points you made, Bush is spending a lot of money and running us into a HUGE deficit while Rove is trying to label the Dems as the typical 'tax and spend' liberals. In the Michigan case of affirmative action, Bush was against it saying that they should get the position because of their work, GPA etc. not ethnicity [i'm sure the irony of how he got where he is eluded him] About NCLB, he did increase funding but when you read the NCLB you find that his funding 'increase' is nowhere near the amount of money needed to fund the bill adequately for schools to meet the demands. I'm not even going to discuss the typical Republican idea of federalism saying that parents know how to best educate their kids and not the federal government. http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0109-09.htm This article does a fairly good job at showing why so many states, teachers and parents are against NCLB. [being in a lot of Education classes since I am applying for my minor to be Education, I've heard a LOT on NCLB from both sides] Campaign Finance bill actually gets rid of soft money, something Democrats rely heavily on in their campaigns as compared to the Republicans, especially Bush. That is why many Dems and liberals are enraged. In regards to the recent Medicare bill, I looked up some information on it from SEIU, the largest health care union with over 755,000 health care professionals in it. http://www.fightforthefuture.org/medicarebill.cfm has the information on it with sources and in much more detail. But basically, the bill does nothing to stem the rising costs of drugs. There are still gaping holes in coverage and it steers seniors into HMOs. There was probably no bigger opportunity missed than the chance to use the purchasing power of 40 million Medicare patients to negotiate lower prices on prescription drugs. The government already uses this tactic for veterans, but legislators chose not to give seniors the same price break. Additionally, provisions to make it easier for seniors to purchase cheap (and safe) medications from Canada were taken out of the bill. Drug companies continue to make huge profits; seniors continue to pay high prices. Gaps in coverage abound. Low-income and disabled seniors actually come out worse off. They're given new copays for their medication that are still a burden for seniors below the poverty line. (Ten states currently let the poorest seniors get their prescription drugs for free.) There's also a gaping hole in the legislation that doesn't give any coverage for drug costs between $2,250 and $5,100. Read the link for more information on the Medicare bill. In your point on immigration, I got this from the Concord Monitor whose article can be found here: http://www.concordmonitor.com/stories/fron...t_21_2004.shtml Labor advocates warned that the president's proposal to have workers sponsored by employers to obtain legal status would prevent them from complaining about job conditions out of fear that the employer would revoke the relationship and have them deported. Other experts cautioned that employers could use the threat of recruiting low-wage, legal immigrants to threaten existing U.S. employees and prevent them from seeking better working conditions. Advocates for immigrants complained that Bush's proposal does not provide an automatic route for temporary workers to become citizens, and said it was designed instead as a path to deportation after the expiration of a worker's temporary legal status. "We're going to be creating, under this type of legislation, a large number of basically indentured servants," said Susan Martin, an immigration expert at Georgetown University who was executive director of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, a government panel that examined the issue in the 1990s. She called Bush's plan "as troubling an immigration proposal as I've seen in the past 25 years." I definitely concur on point 9. He is in a spending frenzy while cutting taxes drastically. It's going to lead us into a very difficult fiscal time.