It happened! The Philadelphia Inquirer has used the T-word!

The pollsters now concur: The unspeakable slaughter of Russian schoolchildren by Chechen terrorists discernibly affected the American presidential campaign.

George W. Bush rose in polls and John F. Kerry fell. Bush's curious blend of doomsday warnings and chesty confidence apparently appeals more than Kerry's wintry, tongue-tied nuances. On style, Bush wins. Few voters have done a sober review of his actual record on terrorism, which is as spotty as his rhetoric is strong.

So, it seems, those who predicted that a terrorist strike would influence the election were right. And the clear beneficiary is the Bush-Cheney ticket.

It is one thing to refuse to use the word "terrorist." It is quite another to use it selectively. Are the only real terrorists located in places where the United States is not fighting them? Might this explain why there are no terrorists in Iraq?

I don't have access to detailed polling data, but the assertion that Bush's numbers went up because of Beslan strikes me as a classic case of the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

Bush's post-convention bounce was much reported and discussed. Democrats complained about such things as the Swift Boaters, and argued over whether or not the bounce would last. (Never mind that Bush got a bounce instead of Kerry, a month before the Republican convention -- and Beslan.)

Until today I hadn't read a thing about Beslan accounting for Bush's dramatic rise in the polls.

Of course, I hadn't seen the Inquirer call terrorists "terrorists" either.

There must be some new strategy. Somehow or other, the soccer moms must be made to feel outrage about the evil Bush taking cynical advantage of a "post-Beslan bounce." Bush finds succor in murdered children?

Anyone so cynical must have known.....

Maybe we should ask Michael Moore!