In the Council, it’s up to the speaker to decide that she will stick with the mayor, as she almost always does. The mayor’s role may be to dole out favors for a few council members, possibly using his own money, as he sometimes does. Someone like deBlasio is definitely in a funny spot; we’ll see how he plays this one.

The Senate also is a challenge, because Bloomberg lost much Democratic support there with his holier-than-thou attitude and his continued financial support for Republicans. So much for his vaunted ability to carve a new b-partisan path, which those pushing his presidential campaign think is a selling point!

In the Assembly, obviously the Brodskys in that house are lost causes, though no one is immune from a deal, I suppose. This makes Mr. Kellner (who does indeed look young, though he may look 20 now — I think that was his high school yearbook photo or perhaps his photo for the chess club — just kidding!) and his ilk in a position to get something for their support.

What is problematic for me with regard to Kellner and the other Manhattanites is the giver and taker part of the alignments. They are the big benficiaries of the reduced traffic, if they are holding their chits on the upper east side for bargaining purposes imagine what it will take to move the electeds from the former two-fare zones.

Anyone who’s vote is in play could flip for CP at any time for any reason. What would it take for John Liu to declare victory for Flushing and vote for CP? What would it take for Bill DeBlasio trying to run for Brooklyn BP? Anyone who could conceivably flip could be made an offer they can’t refuse.

However, the Weprin’s and the Brodsky’s of the political world are wired in and not subject to the horse trading. To the extent you are known a committed no you have no opportunity to bargain a better deal for your peeps.

It still remains to be seen what Bloomberg can pull out of his bag to bring around the City Council, term limited as they are. Lots could conceivably be done in the Assembly since they are more subject to the party discipline that Mr. Silver brings to the table and Mr. Silver has a comfortable majority.

Figuring in the Senate piece may be more problematic as the Bruno majority is sooo thin. Maybe they need some favors done too, though Bruno’s support has so far been sort of assumed.

That may be where Larry’s point about the loyalty of the MTA board may play in. The board is still Pataki’s board, the Pataki who dug the debt hole CP pretends to fill. The Senate conrols the appointments to the Board should Mr. Spitzer at some point have the opportunity to put some of his people in place.

The preferred political solution to the MTA’s capital needs from the point of view of the state legislature is cutting back on reinvestment in the system, saying that reinvestment is adequate when it really isn’t, and allowing the transit system to fall apart in a future you don’t care about.

But if the MTA Board rebels, some real anger might be mobilized against the legislature, which would then have to claim that were it not for “waste, fraud and abuse” the MTA would have plenty of money and be able to offer free transit with no government support. Would they be believed?

Then again, it also gives him some outs no matter what decision he makes.

My sense is that he’s not an ideologue on this, and is willing to vote for the program. But because of the mayor’s fumbling and the fierce opposition by other assembly members, votes like Kellner’s have become much more valuable.

I’d prefer that Kellner take a leadership position in favor of the plan, but if I were a constituent without a strong point of view on congestion pricing I’d probably be perfectly happy with where he is right now.