Yes, this “investment”, which implies a self-serving attitude toward global climate change, reminiscent of another Rice, along with several other concerns;

http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/second-wave-genocide-looms-congo-susan-rice-point

should be more than sufficient to suggest that Susan Rice has “interests” and agendas which ought to make clear that she is not suited to the job.

Some may suggest that we need all the women we can get in government who are qualified to be there. A suggestion with which I wholeheartedly agree, while underlining the “qualified” aspect, which ought to be more than academic or legacy political party “credentials” and should reflect a deeper understanding of broader issues than one’s own financial status and future prospects … beyond the revolving door. Obama’s choice for Secretary of State will very strongly suggest what his foreign policy intentions are to be, “looking forward” and, at the same time, make very clear the sort of “legacy” which he intends to leave to the world and the future … our children’s and their children’s future.

Thank you, Jane, for raising this issue, that there may be some little debate about it, here, which debate seems to be conspicuously lacking in the larger community.

DW

Hmmm, while it’s unscientific, the polling here leans heavily against Rice.

Having the GOP on the warpath combined with opposition from the left — I’d say the White House silence is telling.

I don’t think it makes much difference one way or another whether she divests or not. If she’s got that much in one company, though, and supposing she has a balanced portfolio, her net worth has got to be well north of $5 million, which is not bad for a University Professor and a civil servant. I wonder how she made it. Still, I suppose it’s comforting for one’s old age to be part of the 0.05 percent. Nice work if you can rake in the speaking gigs. For appearances sake she should divest, but on substance it doesn’t make a tinker’s damn bit of difference.

No one in government should be permitted to have regulatory authority that could directly affect the value of their investments.

Or more appropriately, no one in government should hold investments that are subject to their regulatory authority.

Unfortunately, this situation reflects negatively on Rice’s personnel values and attitude toward the environment in general.

There is a further conflict of interest here: Much of the Canadian oil in question is actually owned by the Chinese.

Yes – we need public servants that serve public, as opposed to private, interests.

With regards to more women in government, I am all for it. It will take women to break up the old-boy monopoly (Blair, Warren,etc.) that is the ruination of the nation.

But not just any woman. Palin, any one? Or for that matter, Clinton.

http://www.roselawfirm.com/services/management-labor-and-employment-law

So what do you think? Should Rice’s current holdings in TransCanada and other oil interests disqualify her from the Secretary of State job?

YES! She will represent her own self interest instead of the American people and what is best for the country.

It is way past time for the people of this country to demand true representation and put an end to corporatocracy. I can’t get over how Cantor and other congresscritters used Wall Street to bet against America in their many cash grabs.

Net worth $23-43M. Click on Assets for portfolio.

OpenSecrets LINK

It depends on who is managing her and her husband’s (Canadian-born ABC producer Ian Cameron) investments as to whether she currently has a conflict of interest. A third-party investment adviser or trustee could have made those decisions. Investments made on the basis of a mathematical model of return do not reflect interests or agendas other than getting the best return on investment. However, not all folks manage their investments that way; some have preferred industries of invest in friends’ operations.

Also, there are institutional ways within the State Department that she not make the final recommendation to the President on decisions that impact her personal investment portfolio. Actual conflicting interest on particular decisions is avoidable.

If we apply that standard to her, we should apply it to all candidates for office and not just African-American female candidates for office.

In the absence of more details about the plans for making sure there is no conflicts of interest, my judgement is that it disqualifies her no more than any previous Secretary of State. And mere ownership of record is not indicative of any policy bias.

It’s a fair question to raise as part of a vetting process. I myself am more concerned about her experience with McKinsey. What were her projects there?

Her speech last week at the UN should also be disqualifying. I vote “yes” on the matter.

It would be nice to think that by opposing Rice, who clearly has her own vested interests that she’ll be looking out for, someone without such vested personal interests will get the job. However, given today’s corporate-acrats running our “government,” I doubt it makes much difference. If Rice doesn’t get the job, someone equally as compromised & as much of War Hawk will, whether female or male.

Apparently Rice may be a sacrifical lamb in the present Kabuki Show whereby the 1% pretends that the “people” have some sway. We might have a little sway, but whether the 99% – right or left – gives Rice the thumbs up or thumbs down, someone equally as skeevy will get the job.

JMHO, of course. Thanks for the update. Interesting but utterly unsurprising “news.”

Gulp! She’s in the 0.001 percent. So whom did ahe loot? She’ll be right at home in Davos.

Again, there has not been much of a real and substantive public debate, Jane … about much of anything. Of course, such debate is not “encouraged” by the political class, which includes the media, yet there ought, so it seems to me, be some interest on the part of the people in knowing a bit more about those who will make decisions of moment and consequence that will affect each and everyone of us, far into the future, and personal financial decisions, where people put their money, even more than their mouths, reveals more than a little about their values, concerns, and understandings.

For a while it appeared that because the Republicans did not “like” Rice, that the “progressive left” would rally to her defense and, I consider, that such is precisely what the kabuki demanded, what the pundits expected, and Obama had “counted” upon …

Who else is put forth as a possible “candidate” for State?

Why, John Kerry, whose financial “security” is more than a little assured and whose public support of actual reason, whose courage in facing the difficult issues, whose 99% “sensibility”, would seem to suggest that he is also not the best of choices, for the many, but politically, in terms of “pragmatic efficiency”, his choice makes perfect Obama “sense”.

Frankly, whomever we are “gifted” with … will be all for continuing hegemony, for the drug war, for endless big-bang war, for drones, and for increasing secrecy … to think or imagine otherwise is to evidence a decidedly partisan and simplistic acceptance of “more of the same”.

However, given what we face, with the environment under assault, the Rule of Law a sham, and civil society under extreme duress, “it” is one hell of a show … a multi-ringed circus of confusions and deceit, the closing act of a rotting empire and a totally “unfettered” elite run happily … amuck.

;~DW

What’s baked in the cake has already been decided. Even if they’re rice cakes it doesn’t matter who gets this job. Though interesting net worth records don’t either. Our policies are set by the MIC and Wall Street. Opening new markets for financial services, imports and exports, etc drives this machine called America.

YES!

Government officials are supposed to have stocks invested by a blind trust.
So does this apply to Susan?
Next question how much has the oil and gas industry paid to lobby the Dems, the WH, etc.
Third if Susan has her stocks in a blind trust just how blind is it? Stocks invested by a broker are invested Diversified! Putting one third of anyone’s cash oil and gas is not diversity.
That sounds like inside information or active investing based on research or an inside tip.
If its an inside tip well I would be worried about a war with Iran raising oil prices.
Next question how many Senators and Congress People have similar investments?
I think Cttule and and Edward Teller both might be interested in that news.
You only concentrate your stocks in one sector if you think that sector is going to pay off big.
Susan should be asked her reasoning why when wind and solar are getting cheaper every year would she invest in oil and gas.
If she claims she did research she is lying Germany is using wind power to make hydrogen with electricity, Non Platinum fuel cell tech ( much cheaper than current fuel cells is already developed.
Next question just how can we have a UN spokesperson argue for climate change when they are have a vested interest in more oil and natural gas production.
Oh as to your original question Jane HELL NO!

Oh and if Susan claims she has a blind trust for her stocks and places the blame for 1/3 of her cash being invested in one sector she should be forced to sell all but 10% of those stocks and the bank administering her trust should be banned from doing blind trusts for any government official for ten years.
If that happened I am sure her bank will admit the trust was not blind.

Ditto, well said in a nutshell. We should care more about planning for the next disaster response and give up trying to get “our” Government to even appear to have integrity and follow basic rules of ethics.

Was this an other addition of simple answers to stupid questions or was a snark tag needed.
The question was not stupid it was obvious and needed to be asked only in the Washington would such a question even need to be asked.

I don’t think it will matter who’s the next SoS as far at the tarsands project, but this a useful reminder that our government isn’t of, by, or for the people.

Happening now:

WINONA, TX – MONDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2012 7:30 AM – Several protestors with Tar Sands Blockade sealed themselves inside a section of pipe destined for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline to stop construction of the dangerous project.

Police are threatening tear gas and a canine unit. It appears right now that these people are in grave danger.

.
Oh as to your original question Jane HELL NO!

Sorry unclear Hell No should she keep her current job much less Sec of State.

I don’t agree. It does make a difference if the chosen scrounger is prevented from getting the job on the grounds of perceived corruption, even if the eventual nominee is simply a less obvious scrounger. It’s the difference between exercising what little power we have and sinking into cynicism.

It doesn’t matter who is managing it or whether it is in a supposed “blind” trust. As long as she knows, where her assets are invested there is no means to prevent a conflict of interest.

Find someone else who isn’t compromised.

Of course we already know that the allowance for building the pipeline TX to OK means this is all a done deal.

Everyone loves a train wreck but seeing American spiral down the toilet bowel has become boring.

If we apply that standard to her, we should apply it to all candidates for office and not just African-American female candidates for office.

Yes, we should, and please don’t drag racism/sexism into this.

Yes!

Would someone explain to me how Rice’s financial stake
in TransCanada is not clearly a conflict of interest?

Knut, I usually take your comments as a voice of
reason but here you have confused me.
Unless, that is, your commment @3 was intended as snark!)

Count me as a yes.

She has to divest. But once that happens doesn’t seem to matter.

Drop Rice and another oil puppet will appear. Welcome to the Lesser Evils Club.

I wonder how she made it

Hubby is a producer for ABC. She’s been a well-paid government employee since she started on Clinton’s National Security Council at age 28. After 20 years and continued employment, $5 million doesn’t seem that outrageous.

I think she should be thoroughly questioned about who made the decisions to select those investments and on what criteria. And on her personal opinions about international energy policy.

Appearances matter for critics just as much as they do for candidates for Secretary of State.

For the record, my personal opinion is that William Burns should be named Secretary of State, the office get a lower profile in the second term, and President Obama take public ownership of his foreign policy.

The most likely choices to me seem to be Kerry, Rice, Burns, and Lugar. Kerry is less likely because of having to backfill his Senate seat.

Yes.

I read her worth is upwards of $43,000,000 and I do wonder where it came from.

Yes – she should be disqualified. Even if she divests how do we know that her decisions will still not be influenced by her previous investment (and perhaps future investments) in TransCanada?

I think procedures could address the pipeline conflict problem. My bigger concern is her apparent belligerent attitude which does not seem to me to be the right leadership for State- maybe Defense?

YES!

Partly snark and partly not. I very much doubt that (unlike a Republican nominee) her direct financial interest would influence her strategic decisions. I do think, however, that she probably thinks the tar sands oil is a basically good thing. She seems to reflect the kind of conventional thinking that bright well-connected ass kissers display. The ones that make it in the village. She’s bought and paid for. Where did all that money come from?

Too much in one specific investment.

She has a do-or-die $300,000(?) investment in something that the Government has the lever? Come on… there is absolutely no way to spin this as anything but a targeted investment where she has either inside information, or control. This isn’t a percentage return type investment like investing in GM. Either she makes tons of money or loses all of it. This is betting “all on red” in roulette if the fix wasn’t in.

I she has $50k max at her net worth I wouldn’t be so worried.

I think there is no chance even Mitt would do this kind of “investment” without control or information, yet alone someone lower on the food chain.

I have never seen the actual statement, but people here have alluded to Mitt scoffing at blind trusts being a joke.

Absolutely. The idiot Benghazi hysteria is accomplishing nothing more than wasting time that would be better spent taking a closer look at Rice’s potential conflicts of interest. (Like…actual real issues, duh.)

Did a blind trust keep The Big Dick from starting two wars and making a run at a third to benefit his “blind” investment in KBR?

The pipeline and insider trading are not real issues to Repugs. That’s “free market” to the owners of the market.

What do your think of Lugar? He is an old man so the rigors of the job may be too much?

That sounds right. She will do whatever is needed of her.

Agreed re the UN. But basically I wouldn’t want her as secretary of state anyway, or anyone Obama would likely nominate.

The idiot Benghazi hysteria is accomplishing nothing more than wasting time

I disagree about the importance of Benghazi. General Petraeus gave Susan Rice false “Talking points”. Susan Rice repeated those lies. But Rice had nothing to do with Benghazi. Those decisions were made presumably by Petraeus and the Secret Government.

The official State Dept. spokesperson, is Vickie Nuland aka Mrs. Robert Kagan. She is a neo-con part of “Team Petraeus”, and probably is in the Secret Government. Nuland should have told the lies on Sunday tee vee because Nuland always lies.

Before the election, even Ollie North and rest of the vast right wing propaganda machine, tried to turn Benghazi into a scandal. Petraeus could have stopped this at any time.

But Petraeus does have his own energy deal. A no-bid coal gasification project with the President of South Korea, was planned for Pakistan. Coal gasification is similar to the Pipeline, being an insane energy choice.

Our overseers all own fossil fuel stocks and they expect the next 50 years will be 50 more years of fossil fuel. They hold us hostage. Susan Rice should sell all these stocks at the very least.

With Gates in Defense, Obama started out with a bi-partisan foreign policy. Democrats need to show that they can handle foreign policy and national security without Republicans holding their hands. That means that it would not be helpful to have any Republicans in the national security cabinet.

Lugar himself seems moderate only in comparison to other members of the Republican Party these days. He’s very much of the neo-con school of foreign policy. But as Secretary of State, he would have to defer many decisions to the President.

Burns is career foreign service. Every now and again it is helpful to have one of those as Secretary of State.

At least Burns is a career FSO.

On edit – written before seeing above comment saying same.

It depends on who is managing her and her husband’s (Canadian-born ABC producer Ian Cameron) investments as to whether she currently has a conflict of interest.

I’m quite leery of the US having a Secretary of State who is married to an ABC producer. That wasn’t the original question, but I’m very uncomfortable with that.

TBogg Satan offers his nuanced opinion.

Yep, the relationship with an ABC producer seems more weighty than the investment portfolio. What does that mean for US-Canada relations? And for the way that ABC covers the State Department.

Also Rice is a card-carrying member of the Village.

Rice was a three-sport athlete, student council president, and valedictorian at National Cathedral School in Washington, D.C., a private girls’ day school

Duh. No. How could we possibly expect a decision in the public interest, and not in Rice’s interest? This is more than a whiff of conflict of interest. It stinks on ice.

The problem with our government now is that it is run by rich people for rich people, on the backs of working people. Of course her interest in that dirty pipeline and oil company should disqualify her. This is just another example of how remarkably similar both parties are, and why those who insist that supporting democrats is somehow expressing a difference in politics, are merely deluding themselves. This morning I received an email from Firedoglakes, soliciting a pledge not to support any Senator or Congressman who supports cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Such pledges in the end can prove useless, since no-one wants to be a one issue voter, so often when Democrats betray workers by helping or allowing Republicans to further restrict worker rights, sell out citizens to the healthcare industry, or allow corporations to exploit our Commonwealth for their benefit and theirs alone, we forgive them if they support a woman’s right to choose, same sex marriages or some other civil rights cause. Joe Lieberman on many occasions sided with Republicans against Democrats, he even campaigned against the parties chosen one, but because he worked to abolish don’t ask, don’t tell, he was warmly forgiven by Rachael Maddow during one of her broadcast.