Asserting that America's enemies would prefer a particular candidate to win in order to more easily advance terrorist plans is nothing short of irresponsible.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert said Saturday that al-Qaida wanted presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry to win the election. When asked if Kerry's election would result in more al-Qaida activity, Hastert replied, "That's my opinion, yes."

Between Hastert's comment and Vice President Dick Cheney's earlier theory that Kerry in the Oval Office would mean a swift and serious terrorist attack on America, it is unfortunate that there is an alleged necessity to base a re-election campaign on fear and intimidation.

The hypothesis that Kerry's presidency would facilitate terrorism, as well as the implication that a vote for Kerry is a vote for al-Qaida, is not only a reckless comment for the Speaker of the House, it's a gross misuse of influence.

One of the ways al-Qaida would like to influence the election, Hastert said, is with an attack similar to the train bombings in Madrid that occurred before the Spanish national election in March. While the notion that a terrorist attack would disrupt the November election is hardly new, perpetuating the idea falls in line with bullying remarks like Cheney's.

Perhaps most disheartening is that Hastert has yet to show remorse for the comment. Accordingly, Democratic leaders have either condemned or nullified the comment in a manner consistent with our beliefs of how an effective campaign is to be run.

We all remember the pain and loss associated with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. The response to these attacks has entered into the campaign fray, and the image of terrorism has been company to it.

A campaign on post-Sept. 11 heroism is something we may have to deal with, but to evoke the fear associated with terrorism at the sake of supporting the president is a grave abuse of power.