November 28, 2012

How Amazingly Convenient: Lefties ‘Discover’ That Susan Rice Has ‘Conflict of Interest’ Energy Investments

In what would appear to be a sure sign that the Obama administration’s leftist allies, perhaps with the President’s go-ahead, are preparing to throw current U.N. ambassador Susan Rice under the bus, Alex Guillen at the Politico reported at 6:14 p.m. on information that has from all appearances been public for at least three months, but which the National Resources Defense Council’s On Earth blog noted about an hour earlier.

Rice’s offenses? She “holds significant investments in more than a dozen Canadian oil companies and banks that would stand to benefit from expansion of the North American tar sands industry and construction of the proposed $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline.” That’s indeed troubling, but it was just as troubling when leftists up to and including the editorialists at the Washington Post were accusing anyone objecting to Rice’s potential nomination of being presumptively racist. Excerpts from Guillen’s report follow the jump (bolds are mine):

… According to her most recent personal finance report, covering 2011 and filed in May 2012, Rice and her husband own between $300,002 and $600,000 in TransCanada stock. Those holdings brought them as much as $20,000 in income in 2011. Federal officials are required to disclose the range of an investment rather than the exact amount.

Rice’s husband was born in Canada.

TransCanada isn’t the only Canadian energy company in Rice’s portfolio. She also has investments in pipeline firm Enbridge, utility TransAlta and oil and natural gas companies Encana, Suncor and Cenovus.

About a third of Rice’s personal wealth — an amount as high as $43.5 million — is invested in Canadian energy interests, according to On Earth.

Rice has other holdings in Chesapeake Energy, Royal Dutch Shell, Devon Energy, Iberdrola, ATP Oil & Gas Corp. and Rio Tinto Limited.

According to the Office of Government Ethics, federal officials holding significant amounts of stock conflicting with their duties must sell the stock, recuse themselves from the decision or set up a qualified trust.

Well, if she sold the conflicting investments and threw her assets into a blind trust, that would solve the problem, right? Wrong — or so claim the enviro-zealots:

“It’s really amazing that they’re considering someone for secretary of State who has millions invested in these companies,” Bill McKibben told On Earth.

“[Keystone XL] would be one of the first decisions she would make, and she’s not qualified to make an unbiased decision,” said Jane Kleeb, executive director of the anti-pipeline group Bold Nebraska.

As stated earlier, this is way too convenient. The information which forms the basis for the story is at least three months old; the personal financial disclosure form involved (PDF) had its final sign-off on August 17. Rice’s nomination has been a known Obama administration agenda item for almost three weeks. And now it “just so happens” that an enviro blog discovers this supposedly damning information right after four different Republican Senators, including flaming moderate Susan Collins of Maine, have expressed grave reservations after private discussions with her, and the Politico’s Guillen is right there just an hour later. Can you say “coordinated attack”?

One more thing: As anyone who has followed sports would know, the surest sign that a coach or manager is in serious trouble is when the owner or general manager issues a “vote of confidence.” Obama did that earlier this afternoon (“OBAMA CALLS EMBATTLED AMBASSADOR ‘EXTRAORDINARY’”).

A Rice withdrawal from consideration now based on the “new” information which is really old also has the added “benefit” of occurring without anyone being able to credit Republicans for having stopped her potential nomination.

Susan Rice’s potential nomination to be Secretary of State would appear to be on life support at best.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

Share

2 Comments

  1. Heh, if she held assets in solar and wind and other “green” crap, the enviros wouldn’t be whining about it and in fact wouldn’t care.

    Okaying the Keystone Pipeline is a no-brainier that would benefit all Americans, not just those specific companies and banks involved, it’s not some tough monumental decision that requires an “unbiased decision.” Nice to see the enviros are still stuck on stupid and fanatical.

    And besides, even if Rice was for the Pipeline, does anyone really think she would buck her boss?

    Comment by zf — November 28, 2012 @ 10:30 pm

  2. Obama threw the gauntlet down over the Rice nomination and the GOP opposition promptly picked it up, so what to do when your bluff is called? A clever face saving gesture by liberals for Obama so when Rice’s nomination would have been blocked it won’t be for Benghazi but for her Carbon sins.

    Rice isn’t unfit for participating in a lie, but for not toeing the line on AGW. Gone are the days when one Senator simply says a person is unsuitable and it’s accepted at face value. Now we have to save Obama’s face for making poor choices lest the little god king looks bad. It was bad enough to put up with the thin skinned man child but now we have to put up with all of liberaldom covering his every mistake for another four years. Having said that, at least now liberals consciously recognize that Obama makes really poor choices and they have to cover for his incompetence lest they themselves are tarred with it.

    Actually, this could be an excellent game, every time Obama gets up on his high horse over one of his people, we intensify our efforts on that one person so liberals will have to come up with some absurd excuse to save Obama’s face. Obama can’t help himself, he is a condescendingly self righteous person.

    Comment by dscott — November 29, 2012 @ 8:52 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.