A great deal of virtual ink has been expended on a single quote from Conservative Party Chairman Jerry Kassar about Democratic City Councilman Mike McMahon. The quote, as it has been discussed at length, is this:
"[McMahon] appeals to us on his opposition to gay marriage, and he told us he continues to support U.S. action in Iraq.”
No one who has discussed it here knows what was said to Conservative Party Chairman Jerry Kassar to give him the impression that McMahon supports Bush's Iraq Quagmire. Focusing on the quote above also has allowed some to claim that McMahon's stand has evolved since the meeting with Conservative Party Chairman Jerry Kassar and perhaps he no longer supports the Bush Quagmire. This view rests on the assumption that some time has passed since the meetig between McMahon and Conservative Party Chairman Jerry Kassar and that the Conservative Party's view is out of date.
But let's look at the full quote from Politico [1]:
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.”
So the discussion between Jerry Kassar and Mike McMahon occurred recently, in 2008, and left Jerry Kassar with the impression that McMahon supports the war right now in 2008. That is one recent conversation that McMahon has had recently and one impression he has given. However, a discussion with Daniel Millstone of Daily Gotham [2] recently gives us another impression altogether:
I am opposed to the Iraq War and the time to start bringing home our fighting men and woman is now. That being said, we cannot allow politics to do anything that will threaten the lives and safety of our troops.
So two recent discussions one leaving the impression (to a supporter of the war) that McMahon supports the war, the other leaving the impression (to an opponent of the war) that he opposes the war.
Can McMahon explain this discrepancy? I don't want a candidate who can be accused of flip-flopping within the span of about a month. By comparison, Steve Harrison, the current Democrat in the race, has stated consistently since 2006 that he is opposed to the war and in favor of withdrawal. And he is one of the Democratic challengers (along with Eric Massa) who have articulated a clear, responsible plan for withdrawal from Iraq [3]. Harrison's statements seem, by and large, in agreement with the plans for withdrawal put forward by Bill Richardson and John Edwards during their 2008 runs for the Presidency. For now we do not know with any certainty what McMahon's real views are because of these two consversations giving opposite impressions. Clarification might solve the whole difficulty for McMahon, but clarification is definitely needed.
[4] | 
[5] | 
[6] | 
[7] | 
[8] | 
[9] | 
[10] | 
[11] | 
[12]