Dog Tired
Cutting Through Mike Stoker’s Smoke-and-Mirror Act
Thursday, September 20, 2012
ONE STOKE OVER THE LINE: If anyone can make disgraced president Richard Nixon look good, it’s Mike Stoker, the Republican Party’s perennial candidate for just about anything. Late last week, Stoker — now running for the state senate against Democrat Hannah Beth Jackson — had convened the media for a press event near the imposing arches of the county’s fabled courthouse. It was an excruciatingly beautiful morning. Then Stoker opened his mouth and ruined everything.
Angry Poodle
“I’m not a hypocrite,” he boldly declared.
Compared to Nixon’s still stunning, “I am not a crook,” it was less tragic but more pathetic. Nixon, at least, had achieved a height from which to fall. Stoker’s point was that his Democratic opponent, Jackson, was, in fact, a hypocrite. Where Stoker had always been an open hack and a shill for the oil industry, Jackson, he complained, sought to portray herself as some anti-oil Joan of Arc, even though she had been paid to lobby on behalf of a controversial oil project four years ago. Worse yet, Stoker objected, Jackson had defamed him by falsely claiming he lobbied to lower the fines and penalties imposed on Greka Oil, a company so filthy that it would occupy all 12 spots in Santa Barbara’s environmental Dirty Dozen list.
Let’s start with the facts, always a slippery proposition when Stoker’s involved. Jackson was paid by the Environmental Defense Center (EDC) to lobby environmental groups in Sacramento in favor of a complicated and controversial agreement hatched between the EDC and the PXP Oil Company to allow offshore slant drilling into state waters from platforms that already existed in federal waters. It’s true, as Stoker claimed, this deal would have marked the first new oil drilling approved in state waters since the 1969 oil spill. It’s also true that every single major environmental organization on the South Coast enthusiastically supported this deal. And with the sole exception of then-assemblymember Pedro Nava, it had the effusive blessing of every pseudo-enviro-friendly elected official south of the Gaviota Tunnel. It may not have been a perfect deal, but from an anti-oil perspective, it was a great deal. By agreeing to give PXP a little — and what it looked like the company would have probably gotten anyway — EDC secured commitments from PXP that no oil company had ever been willing to give before. PXP agreed to an actual drop-dead date at which time it would cease and desist drilling. It would shut down one platform in 2022 and three others in 2014. Not only that, but it would pull the plug on two onshore oil- and gas-processing plants. In addition, it would donate 3,900 acres of land to the Trust for Public Land and would pay the cash-strapped state a $100-million up-front advance on oil royalties. It’s true that the EDC paid Jackson with money it received from PXP as part of its settlement. But if Stoker, an attorney by profession, tried to take a case to court with evidence as flimsy as his case against Jackson, he’d be found in contempt for insulting the judge’s intelligence.
Beyond Jackson’s purported double standard, I asked Stoker — an avowed fan of slant drilling — what his position on the PXP had been. Stoker repeatedly and emphatically denied he had ever formed any opinion on the matter, explaining — ad nauseum — it would have been irresponsible to do so without first reading the environmental impact report. I found this claim dubious in the extreme. At the time, Stoker worked as a paid staffer for state senator Tony Strickland; he had to have had an opinion on the biggest oil controversy to hit the county in years. The facts here are not on Stoker’s side. On May 18, 2010, the Ventura Star published an article reporting that Stoker said he supported the PXP development and detailed how Stoker hoped PXP’s $100-million royalty advance would be used to offset UC tuition increases.
Then there’s Stoker’s denial he ever worked as an attorney or a lobbyist to reduce fines for Greka Oil, a company whose extravagantly flagrant violation history achieved mythical proportion. Stoker was hired by Greka, he repeatedly explained, to help that troubled company get its environmental house in order and to become a model corporate citizen. Again, here are the facts: Stoker was hired by Greka — in some capacity — in 2007, when the company was fighting to get a reduction in the $2.9 million in fines imposed by Santa Barbara County. Stoker, in whatever capacity, was involved in those proceedings. I know this because Independent reporter Ethan Stewart attended them and saw Stoker in action with his own eyes. And Marie La Sala, the attorney representing the county in its dealings with Greka, told me in a recent interview that Stoker represented the company first as attorney and then later as a company executive who served as Greka’s lead witness in proceedings held to adjudicate the fines. Stoker insists, however, that La Sala and Stewart are dead wrong, “Period. End of paragraph.” When I told this to La Sala, she buried me with court transcripts in which Stoker — in whatever capacity — argued Greka made a “good faith” effort cleaning up its mess. At one point, he sought to rebut county complaints Greka hadn’t acted in a timely enough fashion by asserting that Greka had acted in “good faith” and responded in accordance to an agreement worked out with the county. La Sala, according to the transcript, vehemently objected no such “agreement” ever existed. To the unspun eye, it clearly appeared Stoker was arguing for leniency. No doubt, he was merely stating the facts. Ultimately, Greka took the county to court and got the fines reduced to $2.1 million. That’s still huge. And whatever you want to call Stoker — “goon” or “stooge” will do nicely — he was definitely involved.
As I left the press conference, the sun still shone. It was still a beautiful day. And Stoker managed to score one point; he is not a hypocrite. His problem? He’s worse.
Related Links
Comments
The local Republican slate this year is as stale as the National ticket. The GOP is on its last legs to be sure.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
September 20, 2012 at 12:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ken: We know that nature abhors a vacuum so who will be the future opposition for the Democratic Party?
I agree that (from the disinterested position of a Libertarian who probably won't vote in any of the local elections) the odds look very much as though Capps and Obama will easily get reelected.
Will the Republicans try to mirror the Democrats? Will they shift to the Left? Will the Tea Party gain more ground? What happens in the next election will be far more interesting than this one.
What is very strange is that I've not seen one ad on t.v. for the Feinstein/Emken race. Tons of Capps/Maldonado ads, lots of Stoker/Jackson ads, but not one for the senate race.
As an aside there is an article here about how Feinstein is refusing to debate her opponent.
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertl...
billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 20, 2012 at 1:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm Bill Clausen, and I approve this post.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 20, 2012 at 1:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's interesting that California is so solidly democratic but the voters here almost never approve the tax increases recommended by the politicians they elect. Sometimes I think Californians are very naive in financial matters. They want all the government services and they don't mind what it costs, they just don't want to pay for it.
Prop 30 will crash and burn just like those tax increase proposals that preceded it. And that's despite Brown's threats to hold education hostage.
Botany (anonymous profile)
September 20, 2012 at 6:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What isn't mentioned above is how EDC also got $100,000 from this backdoor deal through a third party to cover "legal expenses". EDC and the other environmental groups aren't policy makers nor are they in a position to agree to any plan since no one elected them to speak for us citizens of the County. This showed their true colors. They can be bought.
Now back to Stoker. Good lord man, how many times do you have to run and lose to figure out you are a washed up and unwanted wanna be politician? You will never win here. Try something else.
BeachFan (anonymous profile)
September 20, 2012 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Re: Bill C's Vacumn question:
Opposition is indispensable in a democracy and unavoidable anyways. There are enough core Republicans who don't buy into the extremists in religion or politics that will get some new Party off it's feet. The Dems are next, it's the history of political parties in this country- rise and fall, rise and fall.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
September 20, 2012 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Jackson is, in fact, a hypocrite. She is as far left as one can be, is a card-carrying of the local Socialist/Democrat mafia, has been recorded plotting against the Republicans in a budget negotiation, and yet claims to be a moderate who works across the aisle. She never met a tax she didn't like and isn't called Taxin' Jackson for nothing. I wouldn't vote for her for any office anywhere anytime.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
September 20, 2012 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow this op-ed really struck a nerve with someone. Love "plotting against the Republicans" scenario, as if it were somehow unpatriotic to go against the GOP.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
September 20, 2012 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
More evidence Stoker supported PXP:
http://www.noozhawk.com/local_news/ar...
Busted!
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
September 20, 2012 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
nice chop job on the hack politician Greka-man Mike Stoker, Nick..maybe there's some hypocrisy there in Jackson yet Mike makes her look like a saint...oh, and Botany, too bad, Prop 30 leads in the polls and will win. and A and B (YES!)
DrDan (anonymous profile)
September 20, 2012 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
DrDan, It's marginally leading in the polls, but I expect that by November, the common sense of the voters will get the better of them and it will be defeated just like those that have gone before them.
Botany (anonymous profile)
September 20, 2012 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Poor Mike Stoker, he just can't seem to cozy up to the truth. I believe that the reason is that he has never believed in the conservative bs he has been spouting for the last 25 years and so he just can't tell the truth from fiction any longer. A Dead Head Berkeley grad who switched parties when the Republicans were gaining power in the 80s so that he could pursue a political career, he had to give up pot and put on tie. The problem is that the conservatives never bought his line of bs and only voted for him rather than the obvious progressive. Finally, Mike's own wife could not stand the duplicity and decamped. Too bad, because she is a class act, intelligent, attractive, and a great conversationist. If the Republicans would have run anyone else, they would have trounced Jackson. Mike will lose once again. I actually kind of like the guy and hope he finds his bliss. Further is playing at the Bowl soon. Maybe he needs a hit of acid and blast of past to recalibrate his brain.
Eckermann (anonymous profile)
September 20, 2012 at 7:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The author repeats the supposed benefits from the PXP scheme, but failed to include information from the State Lands Commission staff report that calls the "goodies" into question. When you see " marks, that's language from the report.
There were two versions of the PXP arrangement. PXP 1.0 was secret, unavailable to the public (until it was leaked some time later). But when it was reviewed by the Attorney General and the State Lands Commission, this is what they had to say:
“In consultation with the Attorney General’s office, staff attorneys concluded that the goals of the agreement could not be reliably enforced and that the legal context for the public benefit requirements of the agreement prevented staff from devising mechanisms to improve enforceability.”
“The end dates for federal lease production at Point Arguello and Point Pedernales cannot be assured."
It could not be more clear-the deal with PXP could not be enforced.
As for the 3,900 acres of land to be donated-
“…counsel for PXP provided a memo (Exhibit ”I”) advocating that the Commission not try to enforce the Point Arguello end dates and the land donations, but to focus on Point Pedernales and the GHG emissions. Among other things, the memo suggested that the donations could take a long time to complete and that title problems could prevent some of the donations from occurring at all.”
After the PXP deal was rejected by the State Lands Commission, we saw PXP 2.0. This time it was public, but the result was the same-both the AG and State Lands evaluated the "new" PXP scheme and found it flawed and unenforceable.
These are only two aspects of the PXP debacle, there's a lot more to discuss. The public would be better served by an accurate recitation of the facts surrounding PXP's attempt to bring the first new off-shore oil drilling in California Sanctuary Act waters since 1969.
pedronava (anonymous profile)
September 21, 2012 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I trust Nick Welsh's evaluation and factuality far more than Pedro Nava, who has a history of omission, lying and planting innuendo.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
September 21, 2012 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"...card-carrying of the local Socialist/Democrat mafia..."
-- JohnLocke
Stoker lies and JohnLocke exaggerates. Take 'em both to the bank.
SezMe (anonymous profile)
September 21, 2012 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh gosh.... Nick you've ruined it for me. Are you saying our only choice for this ripe Senate seat is one candidate who represents Greka and one who represents PXP ?? We're doomed......
And Ken Volok please refrain from attacking the other commenters.....
4Oceans (anonymous profile)
September 21, 2012 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So according to Nick, Jackson was paid by EDC (let's see the check-this is becoming like Romney's invisible tax returns-Jackson has never said how $$ she's been paid so far-or by whom), EDC was paid by PXP (that's a fact), so PXP's $$ was used to pay Jackson to "lobby" for new off-shore oil drilling. This is something to be proud of? How do donors to EDC feel about this?
pedronava (anonymous profile)
September 21, 2012 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
4Oceans please refrain from playing Supreme Leader.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
September 21, 2012 at 9:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
4Oceans would be nothing without the dolphin population. Respect the contributions dolphins make to your part of the ecosystem, or Ken and I will chide you a second time!
billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 21, 2012 at 9:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I haven't liked Jackson since she supported the hand-weeding ban on California farms back in 2004. When asked why she would support such a nonsensical bill, she replied that she "could not vote against the unions." So much for intellectual independence. I don't care how lame Stoker is, I am not voting for Jackson. Maybe I'll vote for Nick instead. He'd be a breath of fresh air in Sacramento.
blackpoodles (anonymous profile)
September 22, 2012 at 3:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We now accept all major credit cards.
eightdolphins (anonymous profile)
September 23, 2012 at 7:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
@blackpoodles ... Why was the Cal OSHA rule to ban hand weeding "nonsensical"?
Even the Western Growers Association got on board with the final draft:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6084196/n...
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
September 23, 2012 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow!!
Stoker is trying to take the same losing position that Nava-Jordan took.
Nava's tax plan for the offshore oil drillers would not have been as profitable if the PXP plan had taken effect. Keeping those offshore rigs open for the next 100 years proved to be much more profitable for the State. Nava was able to convince the the democratic insiders in Sacramento who wanted the long-term tax money, but the local voters knew better.
The bogus "non-enforcible" argument didn't hold water with the voters. Stoker is setting himself up for losing, just like Nava-Jordan did.
Georgy (anonymous profile)
September 23, 2012 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
EastBeach, Jackson was prepared to vote for the initial version of the hand weeding ban, which had no exemption for organic farmers, nor any exemption for situations where a long-handled tool is ineffective. When asked why she was prepared to vote for a law that would have serious adverse impact on our many local organic growers, her only answer was that "she could not vote against the unions." The only reason that the initial nonsensical version went back to the drawing board is because of a grassroots effort that deluged elected officials with anti weeding ban petitions and derailed the vote at the 11th hour.
Note that Jackson did not say she was concerned for the health of farm workers, who one might argue are at greater risk from chemical herbicides than from having to bend over, which after all is of the essence when you are growing vegetables or strawberries. I lost all respect for her on that day. I am no fan of her opponent, but someone who votes for a bad bill just because the unions tell her to, is the wrong kind of Democrat, especially in these fiscally challenging times.
blackpoodles (anonymous profile)
September 24, 2012 at 11:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I see your point. Thanks for the explanation.
If that's what Jackson really said, that's sad, but at least we ended up with the right legislation.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
September 25, 2012 at 1:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Give it a rest Madonna!
Racheal Madow called, said she would like her act back.... :)
BBOY (anonymous profile)
September 25, 2012 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
oh my, this thread is wickedly twisted, don't know quite where to go in...? a great job in this political hack, Nick, and both sides are pretty corrupt in these sleazy Amerikan elections 2012... sorry to say.
DrDan (anonymous profile)
September 25, 2012 at 6:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So, Pedro, are you endorsing Stoker by attacking HBJ in this forum? While you are completely entitled to your opinion, I would think, as a former politician, you might consider refraining from attacking a fellow Democrat when it's unnecessary to do so especially only weeks before the election. Comparing HBJ to Romney is completely uncalled for and not something I would expect one Democrat to do to another. Maybe you’re considering registering as a Republican? At least that would explain your actions better.
sherryobx (anonymous profile)
September 27, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As a former employee of Mike Stoker, I feel I speak with authority. He worked for the notorious celebrity/slimy businessmen's attorney Harrison Bull at the time,who tutored him well. After two weeks of Stoker's hectoring me about the importantance of money and power, I quit. At the time, my last name was Bannmeyer, my first husband's name which he might remember. If he wins over the hard working, deserving Hannah-Beth Jackson, who initiated several bills that benefited children and education while she was State Assemblywoman, I will simply throw up.
hercules91342 (anonymous profile)
September 27, 2012 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have no intention of voting for either of them.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 27, 2012 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pedro, you have destroyed your credibility and your relationships with progressives, and now align yourself with right wingers like Mike Stoker and "John Locke". Tragic, that. EDC, the Santa Barbara Sierra Club, and numerous other environmental organizations backed the PXP deal. There's a difference of opinion on whether that was the best course of action, but they acted in good faith. The same cannot be said of you and Susan.
JayB (anonymous profile)
September 27, 2012 at 6:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"let's see the check-this is becoming like Romney's invisible tax returns-Jackson has never said how $$ she's been paid so far-or by whom"
Let's see you make all your finances public, Pedro, you ***hypocrite***. That's nothing like a presidential candidate presenting his tax returns. No one is asking for a detailed accounting of all rMoney's financial transactions (although it is interesting that he's hidden how much hire help he has ... you would think he would be proud of all that job creation).
JayB (anonymous profile)
September 27, 2012 at 6:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'll never forget the time I asked Nava for simple anecdotal to support a position evidence and he told me to go do my own research (to support his opposing opinion!) Shady.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
September 27, 2012 at 6:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)