Shining bright lights on backroom deals in the NYC body politic.

Sunday, December 18, 2005

Times Spin a Quinn Win

Single Source Bill Costs de Blasio





For whatever it's worth in the backrooms, the edit heads at the New York Times today published their preference for the Speakership post.

Of Quinn and de Blasio, who the Times decreed the rumored front runners, the editorial says "Quinn seems the better choice".

The Times raps de Blasio for his energetic lead and support of the union contributions bill that recently passed the Council, concluding that:

If Mr. de Blasio becomes speaker, he will need to demonstrate that he does not favor special interests over good government.


But also of Quinn, the Times warns:

...she would also have to make the leap to a broader civic vision and make certain that she is inclusive even to those who oppose her.


Our personal favorite, though, was the conclusion:

The speaker will also have to be someone who commands the respect of not only the mayor and his administration but New Yorkers who expect more from their council than politics as usual.

6 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Its too bad that the NY Times' objective reporters and editorial board consider labor, who make up 13% of de Blasio's contributions, a special interest, but not the Lobbyists and Real Estate interests that make up 13% and 23% of Quinn's donations respectively...

10:49 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ditto... maybe NY Times reporter is a little biased towards a speaker from Manhattan who isn't focused on diversity issues other then Real Estate and gay issues.

Also if everyone in the Council supported the Labor Bill how come Quinn is "clean"? and why are "good government groups" anti labor?

12:29 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Quinn is as close to labor as DeBlasio. The real question is how the editorial plays with Manton since he controls the thing.

12:39 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the NY Times Manhattan-centric, never...

12:42 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know what gets me about this anti-labor bias coming from the NY Times... They want progressives elected, here in NYC, NY State, and nationally... yet they don't want democrats to raise money from businesses, labor, etc... How are we supposed to elect progressive democrats while we handicap ourselves?

Whats so "special interest" about labor unions? Some major NYC unions have more members than there are registered voters in some Council districts in NYC.

12:48 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Quinn is no progressive; she's an opportunist who has sold her own district down the tubes.

7:21 PM

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home