Word is that on Friday afternoon, two guys with broad, full-of-themselves smiles were seen strutting their stuff around Pittsburgh's Market Square like newly emboldened pigeons upon first hearing of Bill Burns' death.
But Democrats Michael Lamb and Bill Peduto should be careful now that their collective wish has come true.
A mere 11 days after announcing his re-election bid, Democrat Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl said Friday he will not seek another four-year term.
In office since late 2006 upon the death of Bob O'Connor, the winner of one special election who then was elected to a four-year term in his own right, Mr. Ravenstahl, 33, has been fending off the “scandal” tag for years, including the current Bureau of Police scandal that has rocked the city and sparked an FBI investigation.
Mr. Ravenstahl cited personal reasons for his decision. Whatever.
But Hizzoner's decision not to run makes neither Mr. Lamb nor Mr. Peduto any kind of new front-runner. Rather, and days before the filing deadline, it opens the starting gates wide for new runners far more attractive than the Lamb or Peduto brand.
Think of former state Auditor General and Pittsburgh City Council President Jack Wagner. Think of Jim Ferlo, the former city councilman and current state senator. Both are Democrats. But think, too, of someone like Republican/independent Mark DeSantis, who lost to Ravenstahl in that 2007 special election.
At long last, Pittsburgh has the opportunity to restore mature, commonsense and economics-savvy leadership to the mayor's office. The clarion is sounding. Will Pittsburghers heed its call?
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.