Demagogue

If you've wondered, as I have, what that "D" next to Senator Joseph Lieberman's name stands for, events on the Senate floor are offering new clues. Yesterday, a number of Lieberman's Democratic colleagues criticized Condoleezza Rice for her role in the distortions that have characterized U.S. policy in Iraq. But Lieberman? He was predictably compliant:

"Our responsibility is to determine whether the nominee is fit for the position ... and whether the nominee, in our judgment, will serve in the national interest. And of course I conclude that Dr. Condoleezza Rice meets that standard at least and much more."

But how "fit" is a nominee who has repeatedly failed to level with the Senate and the American people? Vague pronouncements about serving in "the national interest" are utterly empty. Before telling us that Rice "meets that standard," Lieberman should define what that standard is.

More disturbing was this excerpt of Lieberman's pro-Rice remarks, published in today's Washington Post:

Lieberman, speaking on the Senate floor, said one of Rice's main strengths is that "the world knows that she has the president's trust and confidence."

Yes, the world knows this. But is the world surprised? What Lieberman said about Rice applies to every single nominee that any president has ever presented to the Senate.

After all, presidents aren't known for nominating someone for an Executive branch post whom they don't trust. Someone needs to tell Lieberman: having the trust and confidence of the person who nominated them is the lowest-common-denominator test for nominees.