The vocal anti-progressive blogger

If that is an accurate characterization of G's writings/speech then the answer to whether he will switch his support is obvious. No.
If anti-progressive means pro-machine then McMahon is The Man.
McMahon will do what he is told and the Permanent Government will rest easy. The Brooklyn/S.I. deals and steals will continue on their merry way.

no inconsistancy just a loudmouth Conservative who hates McMahon

http://www.mikemcmahonforcongress.com/iraq.html

He's got a whole page up discussing various issues (and there are more issues coming). You can see it here: http://www.mikemcmahonforcongress.com/issues.html

You wrote "2) Candidate Mike McMahon has said contradictory statements regarding the Iraq war, telling the Conservative Party he supported Bush on this but telling progressives he opposed the war. He has consistently refused to answer any question regarding permanent bases in Iraq."

McMahon's Iraq policy on that site explicitly answers this:

"Our Constitution provides Congress with the power to fund wars, and with the right to make laws regarding the use of military force. If elected, I will use this authority to end our misguided policies in Iraq. Our policy must follow three principles:

1. We must immediately begin to remove our combat troops from Iraq, but this must be done gradually and cautiously. We cannot allow chaos to break out and endanger our troops as we draw down their numbers. Furthermore, non-combat troops must be allowed to continue their current work in Iraq, including protecting our embassy and diplomats, and training the Iraqi military. We must also be prepared to carry out targeted strikes on any terrorist camps, should they form in Iraq once our combat troops have left.

2. We must be clear that it is not the policy of United States to build and maintain permanent military bases in Iraq. Any attempt to establish a permanent military presence in Iraq will disrupt efforts to create a stable, sovereign Iraqi government. It would undermine trust in our government by increasing the suspicion of American motives, both in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.
...
If elected, I will be a strong advocate for responsible efforts to end the war in Iraq, and I will push to make sure that Congress does not grant more war funding without also ensuring that plans for our withdrawal are being designed and enacted. We must thank our soldiers for their service by bringing them home safely, responsibly, and as soon as possible."

Your argument is McMahon is saying X, but someone opposing his candidacy said he said Y. If the Conservatives claimed Steve Harrison said he supported Iraq, would you trust what Harrison said publicly and published on his website, or what the Conservatives said he said?

You write that neither would support a challenge to Marty Golden - where did you get that from? Harrison has supported Golden in the past and donated thousands of dollars to him. McMahon hasn't. Please tell me what led you to beleive that McMahon also supports Golden?

Do some basic research.

If, as Bouldin implies, my work is so long and impossible to read, and my opinions so discredited, that no one takes me seriously, how come I was the subject yesterday of pieces on both here and Room 8 (as well as a verbatim reprinted on "DaBrinker")?

I haven't posted a piece on the 13th CD in 29 days, and see nothing on the horizon that would motivate me to do so again. McMahon's campaign is mostly about creating an aura of inevitabilty, in the manner of Eliot Spitzer, while Harrison's is about whining--I could care less. I've not endorsed either man, and do not intend to; and I do intend to endorse which ever of them wins the primary.

Harrison has at least raised issues about McMahon's stances, but in a strange manner. Sometimes it is to legitimately disagree with a McMahon position, whether it be marriage equality, where Harrison is right, or the 2002 property tax increase, where Harrison is dead wrong (although, I am puzzled what the point of that issue is in a Congressional race--is Harrison trying to imply that McMahon is one of those tax and spned liberals?)

Other times, Harrison articluates a position, says McMahon disagrees with it, and McMahon says "no, I don't". Then Harrison says, "maybe, but I've held the position for longer".

I've looked long and hard to find evidence that either of these guys publicly opposed the war before they decided to run for Congres, and it's just not there. There are a couple of things which imply a prior anti-war position for McMahon (his support for Howard Dean), but they don't prove it. A McMahon supporter cited a statement, I think at the funeral of a soldier, where McMahon said the war had gone on for too long, but this may not have been a call to end the war--it could have been a weary prayer that we finish the job quickly and go home, which I think is the hope of most war supporters as well--or it may really have been an anti-war statement--I dunno. I do know that Harrison's been running for Congress longer, so his unequivocal statement came earlier, though I'm not sure it matters.

As to domestic issues, I think my last piece on the matter (http://www.r8ny.com/blog/gatemouth/taxman.html) made clear that where the two men disagree, I generally (but not invariably) find Harrison's positions more palatable, especially on social issues. But I also made clear my problems with Harrison's inability to admit he's moved steadily to the left on those issues, and in his general politics, over the years, without ever admitting he's done so, or articulating his rationale. This year, Harrison's supporters have attacked McMahon for being imperfectly pro-choice and supporting the death penalty for some crimes, even though Harrison said similar things (http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/29/38/29_38vito2.html) two years ago.

Then there is the matter of Harrison's contributions and campaign efforts in 2001-2003. During this period he contributed not only to the Conservative Party, but to multiple Republican camapigns (City Council, Congresss--Fossella!-State Comptroller-State Senate)and contributed shoe leather and public endorsements as well. He was at the center of a race which helped Joe Bruno expand his Senate majority, and when called on the matter, said he supported the REPUBLICAN-CONSERVATIVE-RIGHT TO LIFE TICKET because of zoning. Apparently, in 2002, zoning was more important than opposing the war or supporting a woman's right to choose. Is this the way they feel at the Daily Gotham as well? In this effort, Mr. Harrison helped to oust an anti-death penalty Democrat in favor of a pro-death penalty Republican. The next year, he ran a far right wing campaign for City Council targetted to Republicans and Conservatives. Now, Mr. Harrison runs as the candidate of progressive purity without ever acknowledging any evolution in his views. By contrast, Mr. McMahon has at least admitted he was intitially worng about the war.

As to Mr. McMahon's Conservative contributions, they are a bridge too far. Mike Cusick, who runs in the mid-Island, has a good excuse for seeking Conservaitve support in his Assembly race--Mr. McMahon does not need the Conservative Party to win his north shore council seat. But, while Mr. McMahon has paid his fee for rental of the Conservative line more than once, he's not endorsed right wing Republicans against Democrats in crucial races--I don't thinks he's done it at all. There is no Marty Golden in his closet. So, while I am impressed with Rosalie's detective work, I don't see the moral equivalency.

Btw, Mole is absolutely correct that both Harrison and the Brooklyn organization have not been encouraging to those who'd like to see a challenger to Mr. Golden, and that's probably restrained version of the facts. If Mr. McMahon really means what he says, and with Diane Savino (who tried to recruit Harrison for the race against Golden) in his corner, there is at least a theoretical chance he might, then that is a cause for celbration. It should be noted that, at the time a challenger was needed for Golden, McMahon had no intent of running in any race involving Brooklyn, so we really can't know from his actions this year whether he is sincere. However, I'm from Missouri on this one--he'll have to show me, and I'm not holding my breathe.

Finally, nothing here has shaken my position that McMahon is the stronger candidate by almost every possible meansure of strength. Given the Republican disarray, and the unpalatablity of the Republican choices (Harrison's Brooklyn residence may not be a liablity against a candidate who lives in Manhattan) this may not matter, but I think the Republicans will write this seat off if McMahon is nominated, but will make an effort if Harrison is. That would force us to divert resources which could otherwise be used elsewhere. I am reminded of the Casey-Santorum race. The results ultimately showed that a more liberal Democrat could have won that seat, but if we had nominated such a candidate, we would have had to divert the miilions which ultimately pulled out victories for Tester and Webb.

So I'm not endosring Harrison, but I'm not endorsing McMahon either.

I never said McMahon was inevtable--I said his campaign was endeavoring to create that aura of inevitability, and it was suceeding, at least on the Rock. Republican ineptitude has contributed no small part to this impression.

I did say McMahon was the stronger general election candidate, and I stand by it. You have the right to say that this no longer matters, and the right to uphold purity over victory; at least you've been consistent on such matters, sticking (I think misguidedly) with Dahroug as well. Others, for whatever reasons, seem to embrace different metrics for different races.

I'll skip the rest, since we will never agree on it, and go straight to Golden. The only one whose word I take here without caveats is Savino's, because she is in charge of candidate recruitment. I don't believe Harrison will ever agree to help beat Golden, and my guess is that McMahon will only put some effort into it if it proves convenient at the time. I would be happy if both Harrison and McMahon proved me wrong.