In the wake of the New York
Times'
revelations that Oklahoma Attorney General is a bought-and-paid-for shill for Oklahoma energy companies, the
Oklahoman was quick to rush to his defense. This is entirely unsurprising given that the
Oklahoman is a bought-and-paid-for shill for Oklahoma energy companies.
Their defense, however, is particularly pathetic and it seemed like now was a good time go to through it point by point to demonstrate this:
OKLAHOMA Attorney General Scott Pruitt and other Republican AGs are working together, and with private industry experts, to combat federal overreach in state affairs. Officials at The New York Times apparently think this is shocking, leading to an 'expose' that’s a case study in media bias and unthinking analysis.
We can begin with a comment about the rather childish nature of this editorial, putting "expose" in quotes to try and denigrate it and using sarcasm to mock it. It's really a sign of poor writing skills to resort to such sophomoric tactics. They're an actual newspaper publishing real opinion pieces. Can't the do better?
It is also the first hint that this opinion piece was rushed and not thought out-- probably because it was rushed and not thought out. The
Oklahoman was clearly just as surprised as the rest of us when it came to these revelations (perhaps they were a little more secret than the paper care to admit?), but had to quickly come out with
some offering of support, no matter how weak. Anyhow, their piece continues:
An article Saturday proclaimed the discovery of an 'unprecedented, secretive alliance that Mr. Pruitt and other Republican attorneys general have formed with some of the nation’s top energy producers to push back against the Obama regulatory agenda …'
That Pruitt and fellow Republicans have joined with the private sector in fighting Obama administration overreach is surprising only to those who haven't read a news article in the past four years or a single press release from Pruitt’s office.
Again with the dismissive tone and sarcasm-- probably covering up and distracting from the fact that they have no real response to the actual claims here. The
Oklahoman frames this as some Republicans fighting against the Federal government's "regulatory agenda" omitting they key parts of the story:
the how and why!!
They go on:
The Times ominously intones, 'Industries that he (Pruitt) regulates have also joined him as plaintiffs in court challenges, a departure from the usual role of the state attorney general, who traditionally sues companies to force compliance with state law.'
But Pruitt’s office doesn’t regulate anyone. The attorney general’s job is law enforcement, not regulation.
I'll admit that the phrasing here is odd. But right there in the quote the Times clearly states what AGs usually do! So why attack them and stress "they enforce!" when that's exactly what they said? It's a strange tactic. They go on:
The above-noted quote also betrays the Times’ bias. Apparently, it’s fine for attorneys general to sue private companies, but not federal agencies. And here we thought everyone was supposed to obey the law and abide by the Constitution!
So here we begin what is a series of straw men attacks. Now the
Oklahoman is claiming "bias" by making an assertion that simply isn't true. The editors are accusing the writers at the
Times of assuming one thing is OK but not the other. However,
they never say that. Instead, they make a very obvious point:
traditionally, state AGs work to force compliance of state laws among private companies operating in the state!
I mean, let's go to the guy's
actual web page! When asked "What are the duties of the Attorney General?" the page answers:
The Attorney General and assistant attorneys general have many duties and responsibilities representing state boards and agencies.
The Attorney Generals' Office is comprised of the following specialized sections: Solicitor General, Public Protection, Criminal Appeals, General Counsel, Litigation, Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, Multicounty Grand Jury, Workers Compensation and Insurance Fraud Unit, Public Utility Regulation, and Victim Services.
I don't see the "Sure the Federal Government Because CONSTITUTION!" section, but maybe they forgot to include it. However, I do see lots of things like "public protection" and various fraud-detection stuff.
Anyhow:
The Times undermines its claims of 'unprecedented' coordination by noting, 'Democrats for more than a decade have teamed up with environmental groups such as the Sierra Club to use the court system to impose stricter regulation. But never before have attorneys general joined on this scale with corporate interests to challenge Washington and file lawsuits in federal court.'
See what I mean about this sounding like they just shot this out at like 2 AM and no one proof read it for actual merit? The above quote doesn't undermine anything. It acknowledges the point that the left has partnered with environmental groups to force companies into compliance of the law, but says that what's happening with Pruitt goes
beyond that. Hence the "unprecedented" part.
So it’s fine to coordinate with private-sector nonprofit entities to advance litigation that benefits those groups’ agendas if the groups are liberal activists, but not if they’re legitimate, for-profit businesses? That’s nonsense.
Yes! It's nonsense because NO ONE IS SAYING IT. It's called a "
straw man" and it is continually being employed here. Indeed, Pruitt isn't coordinating with Devon Energy here. Here is an example from the
Times:
'Just a note to pass along the electronic version of the draft letter to Lisa Jackson at E.P.A.,' said one September 2011 letter to Mr. Pruitt’s chief of staff from Mr. Whitsitt. 'We have no pride of authorship, so whatever you do on this is fine.'
Mr. Pruitt took the letter and, after changing just 37 words in the 1,016-word draft, copied it onto his state government letterhead and sent it to Ms. Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator.
Did you catch that?? Pruitt took a thousand word letter from Devon, put it on state letterhead and sent it to the EPA-- as though
he wrote it!! And note the coded language bolded in the quote-- "we have no pride of authorship" is just saying "pretend like you wrote it and send it off tot he EPA"!!! It's totally unethical. Totally.
Moreover, it is absolutely NOT what happens when environmentalists coordinate with politicians to enforce regulation. And finally, note the difference between the two. One the one hand, when environmental groups coordinate with lawmakers to enforce pollution controls and protections, they do so with the aim of helping the citizens of this country have cleaner air and water. When Pruitt shills for Big Energy, he is doing so to help Big Energy companies get rich.
Of the two, who is working for the people as a public servant?
Still not done making themselves look even MORE like shills for fossil fuel energy companies, the
Oklahoman continues:
Environmental groups have worked with the federal Environmental Protection Agency to fashion policy. Many Obamacare provisions originated with advocates of socialized medicine. Pruitt is merely employing similar methods to advance conservative goals.
So... "conservative goals" are "making sure megarich energy companies can drill and mine wherever they want"?? I guess. But this shouldn't exactly making anyone sympathetic to what's happening here.
Despite claiming Pruitt’s activity is 'secretive,' Pruitt’s office provided the Times thousands of emails and court documents. True secret alliances don’t leave a paper trail subject to open records requests.
HAHAHAHA! This is almost laughable. Pruitt's office didn't hand these over-- they had to. And if the editors of this paper actually think that "true secret alliances don't leave a paper trail" then they are idiots. What, is Devon Energy just supposed to dictate their thousand word letter over the phone? Jesus Christ. If that's the best defense they have... oh-- no. They have more:
To boost its secrecy claims, the Times highlights a forum on federalism and energy policy held in Oklahoma City in 2013. Yet that event, bringing together business and government officials, was widely publicized by Pruitt’s office. What kind of 'secretive' alliance participates in public meetings and invites the media to record them?
Before addressing this, note how now they are deflecting and really harping on the "secrecy" thing. Like,
hey, this is totally sketchy but it really wasn't a secret,
so it's fine!! But also, note how they gloss over a few things:
Mr. Miller’s pitch to Mr. Pruitt became a reality early last year at the historic Skirvin Hilton Hotel in Oklahoma City, where he brought together an extraordinary assembly of energy industry power brokers and attorneys general from nine states for what he called the Summit on Federalism and the Future of Fossil Fuels...
The meeting took place in the shadow of office towers that dominate Oklahoma City’s skyline...
More liberal attorneys general, such as Douglas F. Gansler, Democrat of Maryland, did not participate.
'Indeed, General Gansler would in all likelihood try to hijack your summit,' Mr. Miller wrote to Mr. Pruitt in an email. 'At best you would be left to preside over a debate, rather than a call to arms.' ...
The event was organized by an energy-industry-funded law and economics center at George Mason University of Virginia. The center is part of the brain trust of conservative, pro-industry groups that have worked from the sidelines to help Mr. Pruitt and other attorneys general.
Holy fucking shit. OK, there is a lot to decompress here but let's get to the key elements: yes, the meeting was "widely publicized" but obviously who got to go to the meeting and what was said was strictly limited to a select group of like-minded people. It was a "secret" meeting in any reasonable sense of the word. For the Oklahoman to harp on the fact that it was publicly announced and therefore not technically a secret is just a lame attempt to deflect from the real story.
(Also, as an aside, don't you like that the
Times links to things in their on-line edition? It's almost as though they know how to use the Internet!)
Do they have any other defenses here? Oh, sure:
The Times makes much of Pruitt’s office recycling material provided by private industry experts. But the Times doesn’t suggest that information was erroneous or false in any way. Shouldn’t informed analysis shape legal arguments?
I said "holy fucking shit" before, but I should have reserved it for this line. Because holy fucking shit. So... Pruitt "recycles" letters from energy groups by cutting and pasting them onto state letterhead and that'd fine because it's just using "informed analysis"? And fuck. The article isn't a science expose into air pollution estimates. Though-- and let's be clear-- you know that Devon Energy's in-house analysis isn't exactly going to be objective. And that's the point. Pruitt was being deceptive in making his case-- or, rather, Devon Energy's case-- to the EPA. It's
unethical. If Pruitt was so convinced by this, why not bring in some scientists from OU and OSU and see what they thought? Wouldn't that help in having "informed analysis"? This defense is laughably pathetic.
But again, these poor guys had just hours to scramble and defend what is obviously undefinable. So what are you going to do? They do finally have to admit to a few things, though:
More seriously, the Times reports that Pruitt’s former chief of staff was involved in fundraising efforts for the Republican Attorneys General Association and may have used state resources to do so. If true, that’s a major mistake. Oklahomans want state employees to do state work. Pruitt should have separate, privately funded staff — working outside his state office — to conduct such campaign activity.
Uh, duh. Too bad it took an out of state newspaper to highlight this sort of thing.
Those allegations are concerning. But the vast majority of the Times article merely suggests that Pruitt takes his conservative stances seriously. That’s an indictment only if you think politicians shouldn’t live up to their publicly issued campaign promises or that conservative Republicans don’t have the same leeway in influencing public policy as do liberal Democrats.
Do the editors actually think this? That it's fine to be in the pocket of Big Energy out of some "conservative stance" issue? If so, it's truly tragic.
