Not sure I understand. If you mean that there are competing factions, I certainly agree.
My point is that politicians always make decisions based on what will benefit the politicians.
Sometimes, doing good things for children will benefit politicians. Do the politicians "do good things" because they care about children? I would say "No". I would say that politicians "do good things" because they care about politicians.
What we have here are two competing demographic groups (both are wealthy Liberals, I guess). Politicians will decide which group of wealthy Liberals will win and which will lose. Because the topic is a school, it would be nice if the issue were decided on the basis of "what would be best for the most number of children" -- but I think it will be decided on the basis of "what would be best for the most number of politicians".
This is why I say that government should not be in the education biz.
When I say muddled I mean that there is no clear constituency here that will be lost or won.
Mayor Bloomberg supports Ross, Speaker Silver supports NEST. Bloomberg can afford to lose 700 votes in white Manhattan - he has enough money to fund his own campaigns and his worst fear is alienting minority voters.
Silver lives near NEST and needs NEST parents to fund his campaigns with contributions and fundraisers.
Who is more powerful? Who will prevail? Hard to say. There is no clear political homerun for anyone here.
Absolutely correct, and many factors come into play, not the least of which is "who are the richest of the rich liberals and how have they invested their political donations over the years?" Additionally, the politicians cannot seem to be favoring rich snobs over "doze udder guys who ain't rich" - - most political wards have more of "doze guys" than they do rich liberals.
It's quite a balancing act - - these politicians sure do earn their money.
/sarc