Okay, McMahon loses points on the flag burning BS. My government teacher in high school, who was VERY conservative and always teased me about my liberal leanings, once said that we have to defend the rights of those we disagree with and object to so that we don't find that the rights we wind up defending are our own. Flag burning should not really be on McMahon's radar especially given his arguement regarding the Iraq war resolutions.

So far I consider his war stand an open question but, thanks for the info on flag burning.

The fact that you hate Steve Harrison for aligning himself with Progressives isn't germane here. Personally, I'm sick and tired of constantly having to address the same smears every time Harrison gets mentioned, so you're cordially requested to stop spamming this crap. Thank you.

What is germane is that McMahon's adherence to Democratic positions is rendered questionable by his voting record, and that he clearly does not believe that resolutions expressing a sense of the council are a waste of resources. Otherwise, he wouldn't be sponsoring those resolutions.

So here we have a candidate backed by the DCCC who refuses to vote for resolutions that call for an end to the war in Iraq, but who sponsors resolutions that call for a constitutional amendment that bans flag-burning. There's something very wrong with this picture.

Well then, Harrison was Chair of Brooklyn CB#10 at the time the war started. Other Community Board's passes anti-war resolutions. Did Harrison even introduce one?

And, speaking of who's the progressive, which candidate do you think has the more progressive position on congestion pricing? McMahon very effectively defended it last night on New York One, while Harrison is making McMahon's support of it an issue.

Or are you only for congestion pricing when talking about the Lower East Side?

We've already established that you hate Harrison, and that you bring up his donations, which have been explained to you at every point you've raised them, because you really have nothing else.

Which is, of course, what I mean by spam.

So again, why did McMahon oppose resolutions against the Iraq War and introduce others that, while refreshingly rightwing, had the precise same effect?

Come on. The question is not about the one year Harrison was working with Republicans in a conservative district while allied with them on a local issue. Similarly, no one here, as you well know, is criticizing McMahon for a stand on the war he took at the early stages. What we want to know, and you should too, is what McMahon said to give the Conservative Party the impression that he might be pro-war enough to earn their support and when he said it. You seem very eager to dismiss what seems to be a pro-war stand that was considered appropos enough for the Conservative Party to consider endorsing him NOW. In the end it may turn out that McMahon hasn't been pro-war in recent years at all. But you don't know that. Neither do we. We are asking for more information and that alone seems to bother you. I would also like clarification on where he stands on permanent bases in Iraq and what he means by redeployment.

Your obsession with opposing anything progressives do becomes almost irrational at times. You are lucky that DFNYC and CBID didn't endorse Marty Connor. I suspect that if they had you would suddenly switch to Squadron in your fear of anything progressives support.

You still stick with that baloney about Harrison and zoning. Well, we should remember that that miserable excuse fails to explain (1) that the Democrat Golden ran against favored the same zoning change, (2) that Golden was surely more effective working for that change on the Council where he was sitting, rather than in the Senate, (3) that zoning can in no way explain contribtuions to the Conservative Party, a Statewide Republican, and Vito Fossella, and (4) that all the donation in that pattern are better explained as an effort to buy Republican and Conservative support for golden's Council seat when he won the Senate race, since that is the exact manner in which Brooklyn Republicans and Conservatives usually extort suckers for their support before pulling the rug out from under them.

And 2002, is very relevant, because that is eaxtly when McMahon took the one and only vote on a non-binding war resolution that Bouldin finds so damning. But 2002 is only relevant if we compare what Harrison was doing at the same time: financing and campaigning for the warmongers and their parties, while introducing no resolutions on the Community Board himself.

However, you are correct that McMahon should clarify the timing and content of his conversations with Jerry Kassar.

Harrison made some donations to people with whom he was aligned in a bi-partisan fight on zoning. That's the long and the short of it.

One might add that this was back before one Marty Connor was toppled from the Senate leadership for the simple reason that he didn't invest the applicable time and effort into securing a majority. That's the larger failing here. The new focus on taking the Senate majority only came about after Connor was replaced by Paterson; of course, as one of his confidantes, you would know about that, which makes it even more mystifying that you would trash someone, whom you can conveniently line up with all the other Progressive-aligned candidates you've also trashed, for doing something that was perfectly in line with a policy that you yourself maintained.

What's ironic, of course, is that - and here we go off into all-about-Gatemouth territory again, as always and inevitably we do - you agree with Harrison on the war and on every substantial issue of policy. So one can't hep but feel that what's at work here is something else. I'd posit it's this: you've made your moderately lucrative peace with things as they are. As a result, you resent those who haven't.

Now, if you're going to use this blog to trash everyone aligned with us, and everything we stand for, you're going to run into an editorial problem here fairly shortly. We're not going to put money and effort into building a community of Progressives, only to have someone who's sold himself out and resents and envies those who have not, shit all over it.

Look. Let me once again say (as I said above) that no one is holding McMahon responsible for a vote taken in 2002. We are questioning his CURRENT stand. The Conservative Party made statements suggesting that McMahon was pro-war NOW. I want to know the basis of their belief: what did McMahon tell them AND WHEN. Nothing about 2002 there. Nothing.

The other concern is McMahon's flag-burning stand. This raises two points. First, it suggests McMahon holds a particularly stupid right wing belief: that somehow freedom of expression is a danger to America. Second, it contradicts his stated reason for opposing the anti-war resolutions. Again, the issue isn't where he stood six years ago. The issue is his consistency in regards to these kinds of resolutions.

Look, in 2002 McMahon and Harrison took some conservative stands. Great. It's a conservative district. They have ties to their fellow residents of their district. What is more critical is the consistency of right wing beliefs. You argue at times that Harrison is too conservative. Then you argue other times he is too liberal. Which leads many readers to believe you don't really know where Harrison stands even though he has articulated it extensively and consistently since he began running in 2006. McMahon has revealed far less about where he stands than Harrison, thus creating this whole debate. If McMahon was as straightforward with his stands, maybe we could all agree on it. And he may yet be, for all I know. But he hasn't yet given us as much information as Harrison.

This year there is something of a continuum of how much local Democrats have supported the right wing. At one end you have Harrison who flirted with conservatives (in a conservative district) six years ago. Since then he has been a consistent Democrat. On the other end is Roger Adler, running for judge. He has consistently supported right wingers the entire time up until 2007 with a $500 donation to Rudy for President (no donation at all to any Democrat running for President) and a $500 donation to Marty Golden (who he has supported every year, not just in 2002 like Harrison). The question people are trying to answer is where on this continuum does McMahon stand. Is he more like Harrison, leaning right only in 2002, or consistently supporting right wingers like Roger Adler. If he is he former, you can be sure I at least will be more open to his candidacy. If he is more like Adler, then I have little use for him.

What does that have to do with anything other than your pathological hatred for Progressives?

This is a Progressive site. If you can't stand anything we're trying to achieve, you might ask yourself what exactly it is that you're doing here.

As I recall, you and Liza Sabater begged me to start blogging here, over drinks in Chelsea. You may also recall my early posts noted my reluctance in doing so, which you and Mole made light of.

As to Connor, I think this is another example of you thinking th world began the day you started blogging. In the year 2000, Connor undertook an ambitious program called "Six and Change" which raised and spent millions of dollars in an effort to turn the Senate in one year. As part of "Six and Change" he pretty much intimidated all of his collegues to sign onto a line of credit fior which they became jointly and sevarbly liable. He put his personal assets and of there's where his mouth was.

In retrospect, "Six and change" was a misbegotten and overly ambitious idea. Connor and his colleagues bit off far mroe than they could chew, and their efforts were a spectacular failure. But the idea you posit, that efforts to attain a Senate Majority came only after Connor was overthrown as Leader, are either blithering ignorance on your part, or an outright and despicable lie.

You tell me which one.

And if you delete, it we can argue the whole thing on Room 8, Politicker and Daily Politics--the chocie is entitely yours.

...I'm familiar with Six and Change. I'm also cognizant of the fact that it was one of the biggest political failures since Al Smith lost New York to Herbert Hoover. How many seats did you take? Oh, that's right, none, because it was expensive, politically vacuous and poorly executed. A lot of people to this day think it was a simple effort to do something, anything, to quiet the caucus. Not to mention that it's ludicrous to even entertain the idea that the Senate could be flipped in one election; it's been republican since there was a republican party, more or less, and a one-election effort to take it back with an ideologically and politically indistinct profile was bound to fail. And of course, after the inevitable failure of the effort, everything went back to the way it was, didn't it?

As to you posting here, we asked you, which is a qualitatively different thing than begging. And we did so as we were calling for you to return to blogdom after you were shot down by some of the people you trashed.

Did I say "Six and Change", wasn't a disaster? It was. But, it was way too big a disaster to be the kubuki you've implied. And if you're going to cast anathema on those who were responsible, you'd better be lining up firing squads for Schniederman and Forand as well. Well, at least it was an experience--and they learned too.

But it does prove that your statement, "The new focus on taking the Senate majority only came about after Connor was replaced by Paterson" is a lie. And, since you admit you knew about "Six and Change" it qualifies as a despicable lie. Your implication is Marty Connor did nothing to try to change the Republican Majority. Too much foot leather and too much money in too many campaigns tells a far different story.

You should hang your head in shame. Is there no expediance to which you will not resort to back someone who was good enough to treat you as if you were important?

And this comment is perhaps even worse:

"...mystifying that you would trash someone, whom you can conveniently line up with all the other Progressive-aligned candidates you've also trashed, for doing something that was perfectly in line with a policy that you yourself maintained."

I assume that you are saying that Marty Connor's policy was to help Senate Republican, and that because Steve Harrison helped the Senate Republicans, I should embrace him as a brother.I do--David Greenglass.

You see Michael, I was on the streets day after day trying to keep a Senate Democratic incumbent in office despite redistricting, tons of Republican money (raised from the likes of folks like Steve Harrison and other opporunists), and Democratic desertions, manipulated by Republican bribes, blackmail and extortion (to flip he likes of folks like Steve Harrison). One day, I had to pay $40 dollars to get my pregnant wife back and forth from the doctor, because I couldn't drive her, because I was too busy supervising our efforts in the recount of the ballots from the Independence Party primary for State Senate.

So no, I don't see how Harrison and I were perfectly in line with the same policy. Harrison was openly and notoriously helping Joe Bruno, which was perfectly in line with every statement about public policy he'd ever made up to that time. And he's never apologized, and never explained, except to talk about zoning (an issue on which Gentiel held the same position as Harrison)

And, I'll admit that that campaign has affected me profoudly. I am now of the strong belief that Democrats would hold the State Senate, but for traitorious acts by those who claim to share our values--people like Steve Harrison. And, I believe that the one solid way to prevent such actions in the future is to expose and humilate those who have committed them in the past, as a signal to others that it is not worth their while.

And, it works.

Hiram Montseratte has pledged to vote Democratic in organizing the Senate, despite his flirtation dance with Joe Bruno. Simcha Felder, no great liberal, publicly pledges on every occassion to vote with the Democrats to organize the Senate. Stigmitizing traitors works.

And I have consistently, and will continue, to keep up that good work.

And, as you well know, I've trashed reactionaries too, or do you forget my comments concerning Jack Davis, Chris Bodkin and Noach Dear?

Seriously?

But it does prove that your statement, "The new focus on taking the Senate majority only came about after Connor was replaced by Paterson" is a lie.

Right. Because a one-off effort that failed miserably is the exact same thing as a multi-year effort that is actually working. Nothing "new" here.

Is there no expediance [sic] to which you will not resort to back someone who was good enough to treat you as if you were important?

Thanks, Gate. I hadn't realized that that was your motivation for this exchange, the multiple blog posts about what I happen to think and the hundreds of emails you send me in the course of a given month.

You see Michael, I was on the streets day after day trying to keep a Senate Democratic incumbent in office despite redistricting, tons of Republican money (raised from the likes of folks like Steve Harrison and other opporunists [sic]), and Democratic desertions, manipulated by Republican bribes, blackmail and extortion (to flip he likes of folks like Steve Harrison).

Let's be really clear here: what has you so agitated are some checks that Harrison cut to people who were on his side in a zoning fight. That's a thin basis for months worth of vindictive, petty tirades, but you're well-known for an obsessive streak, obviously.

I am now of the strong belief that Democrats would hold the State Senate, but for traitorious [sic] acts by those who claim to share our values--people like Steve Harrison. And, I believe that the one solid way to prevent such actions in the future is to expose and humilate [sic] those who have committed them in the past, as a signal to others that it is not worth their while.

Get over yourself. You don't have the capacity to humiliate people. The only one arguably being humiliated by the unhinged rhetoric you direct at your would-be victims is yourself.

Stigmitizing [sic] traitors works.

Snort. Yes, because you are the root cause of everything that happens in New York politics, as we all know. Once again, I draw your attention to the effect of unhinged rhetoric on credibility, not to mention the effects of vastly inflated influence assessments on same.

And I have consistently, and will continue, to keep up that good work.

I've heard your efforts described in much less flattering terms, which I'm still too kind to repeat publicly. But again, after your various jihads, I'd suggest that most people read your efforts with some grains of salt. I mean, we've been here before. You trash Progressives, period. The excuses for that change, but the same thing happens in every election cycle. There's nothing new or even particularly interesting here.

Each organization has a minimun any candidate needs to have before they can be endorsed. And they have "no endorsement" slots. Your criticism of both is that neither candidate got enough votes to be endorsed, with no endoresments being taken into account. Well, then I guess you are going to attack IND...and practically every other political organization around, all of which have the same basic system.

Or do you just not believe that rules should be followed? Because you are in essence suggesting that DFNYC and CBID should suspend the rules for Marty Connor.

The were two reasons I even said it; one was to make clear what you hadn't, which was that, at two venues which had questioned and eyeballed the both of them, groups of progressives cast much votes, by a good margin, for Marty Connor than Dan Squadron. Since both groups were expect to pick Squadron, I'm actually quite elated, as I am with Chris Owens' description of the zeitgeist at CBID concerning the race.

The other reason I said it was to respond in kind, as snottily as you had, which was, in this case, probably unfair to you and the groups.

I don't think people expected Squadron to get DFNYC and CBID. I thought it was a possibility, but I never saw much enthusiasm for Squadron in either. Or really for Connor. Hence the no endorsement. You might have expected both groups to go for Squadron, but that is largely because you aren't really that familiar with either. Decisions in both are made fairly carefully, though (as I recently expressed with regard to CBID's non-endorsement of Clarke) I don't always agree with them. Honestly, the questions asked at DFNYC and CBID events are much tougher than the ones asked at IND, which tends to softball politicians by comparison. At least that was the case when I have been able to see the same candidates in more than one venue, which wasn't the case this time around.

Come on Gatemouth, palm cards were first used in 2004 so how was it that Harrison was handing them out for Fossella in 2002? Now, get your hundreds of witnesses and you can bring them to Michael, David and I and after the swore on the Bible maybe then we'll believe them. But please remember not to bring the paper bag with the five dollar bills in it.

I'm shocked that Lopez didn't tell you that McMahon supported Dean but since he didn't do anything to help Kerry and S.I. went to Bush I guess they want to forget that part of his political involvement. Then again, he made up for it by supporting Bloomberg in 2005 and Molinero also. Some Democrat that is.

By the way, what did McMahon do for Barbaro in 2004? Not very much at all. McMahon is an opportunistic phoney who didn't have the balls to run against Vito even when LaValle begged him in 2006. He was AFRAID of losing.

Tell me, did Lopez also forget to tell you that McMahon was repremanded by the Ethnics Board and I believe fined for using staff to chauffer his kids to soccer and other things?

Gatemouth aside, this was about issues: a.) flag burning/freedom of expression and b.) what did McMahon tell the Conservative Party about his support of the war that got them so happy and, critically, when did he say it.

Those were my key questions and remain my key questions. Gatemouth then made it about donations to conservative people back in 2002 which really isn't an issue to anyone but him.

As I recall you were the one who brought up the extraneous topic of the State Senate race in the 25th, I was wrong to rise to the bait, but I think it was neither of us who were responsible for elevating that irrelevant discusion exponentially and then complaining that the topic of the post had been sidetracked. Wonder who could have done that?

The topic was McMahon's postition on the war and when it changed.

In discussiing this issue, I pointed out that we know that, in 2002, McMahon voted against a symbolic anti-war resolution atthe City Council, that in 2003-2004 he supported untra-anti-war candidate Howard Dean for President, and that in 2008, a supporter of the Republican candidate stated that, at a time and context unspecified, McMahon indicated support for the war. The evidence, as you've noted is inconclusive.

Of course, it is fair in this context to point out that the only way to measure the adequacy of Mr. McMahon history on this issue is to compare him to his opposition. So, it is fair to point out that, at the time of the war vote, Mr. Harrison was campaigning for and writing checks to pro-war Republican candidates, including Vito Fossella, who had just voted for the war resolution. Thus, Harrison's outrage concerning the war, which would surely trump a local matter like zoning, must date from later time. Yet, there is no public record of any Harrison statement against the war until 2006, and there was no effort by Harrison, in all those years, to introduce any anti-war resolutions, similar to the one passed at the NYC Council and other Community Baords, at anytime during Harrison's tenure on Brooklyn Community Board 10.

Could you proivde me with any evidence that refutes my conclusion?

As to flag-burning, McMahon's position is regretable. Although I sincerely believe that the best way to keep such an excreble constitutional amendment from passing is to keep and expand the House's Democratic Majority, and the best way to do that is to elect McMahon, it certainly is fair game to attack him on this issue, provided your candidate has a different position. Does he?

I'll make you this offer. Produce for me a clear unequivocal statement by Harrison in which he states his opposition to any legislation or constitional amendment to ban flag burning, and I will reprint it on my blog, with a completely non-sarcastic statement hailing Harrison for his courage. Really.

Is Steve Harrison ready to make Gatemouth eat crow? We will see.

Sorry, McMahon actually actively supporting an anti-freedom of expression bill (brought up because it contradicts his excuse for opposing the anti-war bills) is not the same as someone never taking a position until recently.

And once again, the Conservative Party comment (made recently) suggests a more pro-war stance by McMahon than McMahon's current response. Once again, I reserve judgement until I hear more specifically what was said and when. You excuse McMahon's votes on two conservative issues and the interest of the Conservative party based on a vague statement made now. Fine. But then you, condemn Harrison for one year where he supported conservatives and ignore his VERY CLEARLY STATED and unequivocal statements made consistently since 2006. Your consistency in condemning any and all efforts made by progressives no matter how successful leads you to amazing inconsistencies in practically everything else. Why? You are better than that, or we always assumed you were or we never would have encouraged your posting here. If all you do is attack those whose efforts to actually get Democrats elected quite honestly put yours to shame, then you aren't really contributing much here and are indeed a better fit in places like room 8. We felt you were usually better than that and so happily welcomed you. This isn't just about disagreement. This is about your consistent attacks one group of people and your consistent defense of another group of people based on what seem like arbitrary and inconsistent criteria. You come off merely biased, not consistent or informative.

As to Steve Harrison on flag burning, since he has consistently been an advocate of freedom of expression (from my personal experiencing LISTENING to him as opposed to your making stuff up about him based on nothing) I have no reason to believe he would support a flag-burning amendment. Now the one situation where it generally comes up is at CBID's endorsement meetings. One CBID member consistently asks a question that tries to get at a candidate's knee jerk reaction to this issue as a proxy for that candidate's real civil liberties stands (for the record, Eric Adams immediately got the question and gave the right answer). I did not attend this year's endorsement meeting so I don't know if this frequently asked CBID question came up or not, but CBID did endorse him, so I assume he passed the flag-burning test. But you probably wouldn't know about CBID's frequent probing on this issue since you dismiss them as mere progressives.

I think alot of good people were wrong on the war, along with a lot of not so good people; I think the good people, like John Kerry, were usually wrong for the right reasons. I also think that not all the peoplw opposed to the war are good people--Pat Buchanan comes to mind, as does ANSWER.

I do not ask you to excuse McMahon's bad vote, although many excuse John Edwards', because he eventually came around. McMahon came around as well --when is subject to debate--the Dean endorsement would indicate an early date; the inherently questionable statement of Kassar would indicate later---I hope the facts come out.

I bring up Harrison's contributions and campaign activities in this context only because they raise the question of when he came out against the war. It is inconcievable to me thata person morally outraged by the war vote in 2002 could have handed out palm cards with Vito Fossella's name on election day, because of an attenuated conection to a local re-zoning. Such activities would indicate something less than moral outrage.

If Harrison did not hand out such palm cards; let him post a denial--then we can ask Vinnie Gentile what he remembers. But I think we must assume he came around on the war later than 2002. The only evidence I've seen says 2006. So, for four years after supporting Fossella in the aftermath of the war, we have nothing. Surely if Harrison was as passionate against the war as you state, there must be one letter to the editor, one resolution at a Community Board, one contribution to an-antiwar group or candidate , one photo at an anti-war meeting that exists prior to 2006.

So, I see no evidence at this point that Harrison opposed the war any earlier than McMahon.

As to flag burning, I did and will not defend McMahon's position. In fact, in the past I've excoriated Ed Towns and made fun of Hillary Clinton for similar antics. While I don't consider it grounds for disqualification, because it is only one factor among many, it clearly would be a factor in Harrison's favor, giving him the moral high ground--so I ask, show me his position is different, with a public statement from him, and I will publicly eat crow.

No...one...cares...

No one cares what EITHER candidate thought in 2002. We care what they think in 2008. You are stuck in the past in more ways than one.

If we don't get more info on the Conservative Party's considering RIGHT NOW to endorse McMahon over Harrison, the Republican candidates or even the Libertarian candidate, then we can only assume that McMahon has indicated to the Conservative Party recently that he supports the war. Why else would they consider him over Harrison, Powers or Powers (and whoever the other Repub is). That is the question that you consistently ignore and the key question. I said right up front that McMahon's answer was't bad but left questions unanwered. Harrison has given consistent and clear answers for 2 years now. McMahon has given only the one statement presented her and apparently a different statement sometime in the past to the Conservative Party that seems to contradict the statement quoted above. Without further clarification, no one knows where McMahon stands right now in 2008. People do know where Harrison stands right here in 2008. That is the fundamental fact you have failed to address all along.

So start moving forward, Gatey. It isn't 2002 anymore. A lot has changed. You should be just as concerned as we are about the Conservative Party expressing the possibility of favoring McMahon over anyone else right now. In fact, let's review the full comment from the Conservative Party:

Indeed, one complicating factor for Powers is the role of the state’s Conservative Party, which has hinted that it could support the likely Democratic nominee, City Councilman Mike McMahon, for the general election. Brooklyn Conservative Party Chairman Jerry Kassar, who recently met with McMahon, said he would give serious consideration to endorsing the councilman, calling him a “moderate to conservative Democrat.”

“McMahon is in the mix this year as a popular Democrat that I would seriously consider supporting,” Kassar said. “He’s not as conservative as Powers, but he definitely appeals to us on some of the issues. He appeals to us on his opposition to gay marriage, and he told us he continues to support U.S. action in Iraq.”

Note that this indicates that the meeting between the Conservative Party and McMahon that led to the impression that he is pro-war happened RECENTLY. Not 2002. Not 2006. The quote from the aritcle suggests it happened in 2008. Recent as of 6/4/08, 9:13 AM EST when the article came out. Doesn't that concern you? Quite honestly, I question the sanity of anyone who supports the Iraq quagmire right now in 2008. It also raises the question of whether McMahon is telling different people different things and hence no one really knows where he stands here and now.

Very well-said. More, please.

You are completely correct, it's the issues of today that matter and not what a candidate did 6 years ago and maybe even longer. Priorities are all that matters and as a voter I know that's what I want to hear from any candidate for any office.

Look, you, Gentile and Reccia supported Noah Dear so 20 years from now should we still hold your feet under the fire for that endorsement?

The information on McMahon's endorsements came to me from a Republican friend (yes, I do know 1 or 2 although I'm trying to convert them) who lived on the Island but has since moved away.

I know I can stop but what about your friend Gatemouth? He's the one that keeps harping on it.