This project draws on Lakoff and Johnson's (1980) work with metaphor analysis to uncover the rhetorical strategies applied by supporters of the English for the Children organization during the 2000 Arizona Proposition 203 campaign. The data were collected from three sources: (a) "The Arizona Republic"; (b) the "East Valley Tribune"; and (c) the 2000 "Arizona Voter Information Pamphlet." Grounded in Critical Discourse Analysis (Fairclough & Wodak 1997; Johnstone 2002; Schiffrin 2002), Santa Ana's (2002) metaphor analysis framework was applied to expose the metaphors used to denigrate bilingual education and those who support it, as well as the underlying ideology behind biased legislation like Proposition 203. Metaphors were analyzed in terms of the cognitive entailments produced by their source and target domains. In general, the overall debate between bilingual education and Proposition 203 was characterized as a WAR. The results show that extra emphasis was placed on portraying bilingual education as a FAILURE and situating minority-language students as VICTIMS. Conversely, English was enshrined in the media as the key to the "American Dream." This work exemplifies the analytical power of critical discourse analysis by illustrating how language is utilized as a tool for political ends. (Contains 7 figures.)