You already know that Dick Cheney said "the danger is that we'll get hit again" by a terrorist attack if John Kerry wins. (AP story here.) I find myself less appalled by Cheney's remark (hey, he's just saying what all true Republicans believe -- that Democratic presidencies are the gateway to evil) than by reporting on the remark by ABC's Jake Tapper (yes, that guy who used to write snark for Salon).

In Tapper's report, broadcast last night, we heard Cheney's attack, followed by John Edwards's response (that Cheney "crossed the line" and effectively blamed voters for terrorism if Kerry wins and it happens). Then Tapper said this:

TAPPER: Is there any evidence that terrorists are more likely to attack if Democrats are in charge?

What the hell kind of question is that?

I'll tell you: It's a question that dignifies Cheney's sewer-level allegation by suggesting that such evidence could exist -- Tapper implies that it could be objectively demonstrated that Democrats will get you killed.

Tapper, to be fair, says:

TAPPER: There is no evidence.

But then he implies that there may, in fact, be a legitimate reason for fear:

TAPPER: But Republicans based their remarks on this statement from Kerry's convention speech, which they say means Kerry would wait to be attacked, then retaliate:

KERRY: Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and a certain response.

TAPPER: Republicans say Democratic criticism of the President's doctrine of preemptive war indicates Democrats are more likely to play defense.

Ah, so there is evidence! It's just circumstantial. Thanks for clearing that up, Jake!

Tapper finishes by muttering this, for balance:

TAPPER: Democrats say the President's campaign in Iraq has made more enemies for the U.S., making the U.S. less safe. This is the debate for every day between now and November.

And so the outrageous attack by the snarly, craggy Cheney is made to seem reasonable and legitimate by the baby-faced, decent-seeming "objective" or "liberal media" (choose one) reporter for ABC.