As personal problems and scandal ended the political career of Staten Island Congress Member Vito Fossella, some Democrats and reporters seem to have awoken to what they say is a once in a generation opportunity to turn Democratic a Congressional seat long held by Republicans. (See also SI Advance, here .) As a result, the (in my opinion, conservative) Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, local Congress Members, Democratic Party "regulars" and the Working Families Party have endorsed NYC Council Member Michael McMahon over progressive, anti-Iraq-war candidate Steve Harrison. None of these groups, thus far at least, have shown any interest in the positions of either Mr. McMahon or Mr. Harrison. My sometimes ill-informed judgment is that ignoring the merits is a mistake. The reason why Democrats John Hall and Kirsten Gillibrand beat entrenched GOP Congress Members in 2006 was that they presented clear progressive programs to counter the Bush-clone policies of their opponents. In my view, to the degree that the Democratic party presents Bush-Cheney-Lieberman-clone candidates to the voters, it will lose.

To focus then on some of the issues which are crucial, in my view, I asked Council Member McMahon some questions He replied in part and you can (and should) judge those answers for yourself.

Below, however, are three questions which Council Member McMahon didn't answer. Because I respect the abilities of those who prepared the answers, I am persuaded that the omissions are deliberate. Those omitted answers concern issues which members of the next Congress will actually face.

More war? Mr. McMahon did not state whether, were he a member of Congress, he would favor or oppose further Iraq war funding. Billions of dollars, needed at home, are funneled into Iraq-war-profiteers and into an immoral and evil war. Check it out in more detail here . If we're to believe Nobel-prize economist Joseph Stiglitz, the total tab will come to three trillion . Can Mr. McMahon say no to such squandering? He doesn't say.

Permanent bases? Mr. McMahon is silent on the issue of long-term Iraq occupation. Mr. McCain proposes that US troops remain for 100 years. Long term basing is crucial now as Mr. Bush & Mr. Cheney seek to force a Status of Forces Agreement" (SOFA) on the Iraqis and us. (For more on SOFA problems read smintheus's Kos post ) Would Mr. McMahon, were he in Congress oppose long-term basing of US forces in Iraq?

Detainee rights? Under the misleadership of John McCain, Congress tried to bar detainees labeled as "enemy combatants" by Mr. Bush from seeking court review of the lawfulness of their detention. By 5-4 the Supreme Court barred this end run around the Constitution. Mr. McCain proposes yet one more try to keep people from having their day in court. Will Mr. McMahon support justice or kangaroo courts? He doesn't say.

I think the omissions are purposive; that the goal here is to run Mr.McMahon's campaign as far to the right as possible. If, as I hope, I am wrong, perhaps the McMahon camp will speak up.