Scot Lehigh of the Globe details an apparent rift between the supply-side Club for Growth’s Stephen Moore and the White House:
Asked by Newsweek about those ads [attacking Olympia Snowe], Moore implied they were fine with the White House, noting that Karl Rove, Bush’s chief political adviser, hadn’t voiced any objection. ‘’When he’s upset about something, we hear it,'’ Moore said.
So when Rove was in New Hampshire on Wednesday, I asked him whether he thought it was appropriate for the Club for Growth to target Snowe.
‘’I don’t think it is particularly constructive,'’ Rove replied. ‘’After Steve Moore was quoted in Newsweek as saying the White House hadn’t complained . . . I called him up and complained. I told him I thought the ads were stupid and counterproductive and not helpful.'’
Stupid. Counterproductive. Not helpful. Those terms don’t normally connote approval. So what does Moore think now?
‘’They have to deal with Olympia Snowe,'’ he says. ‘’Karl Rove said what he had to say.'’
So let’s see if I have this right. Absence of critical comment is, in the supply-side world, taken for approval. And when the critical comment does come? It’s dismissed as nothing but pro forma political posturing.
For Lehigh the exchange just confirms the supply-siders lack of grasp with reality. I, however, tend to believe that Rove would give the go ahead then issue public statement to the contrary. Rove excels at pro forma political posturing, and it’s odd that Lehigh doesn’t consider the possibility.
No comments have been added to this post yet.