Democrats' imam supported al-Arian
 

Hang on, let me see if I can summarize 10 pages of political nastiness here:
Libs: Who cares? He's a religious person, he was standing up for justice and truth when he testified for that terrorist, and besides, what difference does it make who endorses who?
Cons: Link Dems to Islamic Jihadists. Assume Dems are sympathetic to Arab causes. Exclaim "No wonder the PLO endorsed Kerry!" repeatedly.
Libs: Call conservatives a nasty name or two, make some unprovable claims, remind us all that Kerry has three purple hearts for defending his country, so there's no way he'd betray it by selling out to the Arabs, as the NeoCons are clearly suggesting.
Cons: Pull out a few more nasty names. Link to some facts which may or may not be applicable. Sarcasm meter should be pegged high by this point.
Libs: Discard all of the above facts based on the questionable character of one of the authors' wives in one of the articles linked. Roll eyes.
Cons: Discount all liberals because of the above. Post a cartoon.
Libs: Remind cons of halliburton, wmds, "mission accomplished," or any other arbitrary failing (real or perceived) in the Bush administration.
Cons: Did not.
Libs: Did too.

And it just goes downhill from there. (sigh) Eventually, the middle ground will settle on the idea that it was probably a really stupid PR choice to pick this guy for the DNC invocation, but that it really doesn't make any difference at all.

So now that we've gotten that out of the way, can we just skip to the jokes, humor, and entertaining stuff associated with this? :)

Dan

Dan:

Well said. Seems like both sides have the endency to put out statements they cannot prove and hope that some of the crap sticks with the voters who are either unwilling or unable to delve a bit deeper.

We would punish our children if they acted like politicians.

who supported Al's anus?