d   o   w   n       t   h   e       p   i   k   e

Can we put an end to the jump-on-Konnie dogpile Worcester's been living through ever since the Boy Mayor became Lieutenant Governor-elect? It started as a political sidebar to the Murray campaign, and that was fine. We all got a chuckle out of the fact that if Tim Murray had to leave the mayor's office, his biggest political rival on the City Council would become mayor. Great second-day storyline.

But it's gotten ridiculous, now that Konstantina Lukes is starting to measure drapes. And (not for the first time) I feel sorry for our mayor-designate. She's no longer just the leader of the opposition; now she's the Mitt Romney of Worcester.

We reached the tipping point Monday, when T&G columnist Clive McFarlane decided to probe the issue. His editors gave the column the subhead "Contrarian persona won't help the city," but he mostly lets his sources do the talking, rather than drawing conclsions himself. Rather than wading into the argument himself, he hedges: "... right or wrong, Ms. Lukes has generally been cast as someone who pokes holes in the plans of colleagues, rather than someone who works with her colleagues to create better plans."

We'll get to those casting agents in a moment. I'd like to note that I do not know Konnie Lukes, aside from what I read in the paper. I did vote for her as mayor in 2005, so I'm part of why she's where she is now. I like that she stood against the St. Patrick's Day Massacre -- whether or not firing the city manager was the right move, it was being done far too shadily and I'm glad three councilors decided to point that out.

But Konnie does more in her unofficial role as leader of the opposition. And her critical eye has Councilor Frederick Rushton worried. That's the same Rushton who, as someone with "his own eyes on the mayor's position" in 2007, notes McFarlane, has no ulterior motive.

Mr. Rushton said, “When the mayor walks into a room, he has to be the physical embodiment of our vibrant present and our vibrant future.

“You talk about the many ways the city is on the move,” he said. “You don’t focus on dreams being broken. When I look at Main Street, I don’t see empty buildings. I see a spot for a café, a spot for an upscale boutique and the next spot a potential start for another Microsoft-like company.”

Rushton was referring, said McFarlane, to Lukes' self-identified "cynical" statements to Banker & Tradesman, which included: "I’ve been a public official since 1980 and I’ve seen too many promises broken and dreams shattered."

Well, I'm not ready to give up on Konnie becuase she's a realist. She took on the council role of loyal opposition, or devil's advocate, and in so doing kept the rest of the council honest. As mayor, she'll need to change her tune, but I don't see any reason why she can't.

Put this way: as mayor, Tim Murray was supposed to be a staunch booster for Worcester, to try to squeeze every last penny out of the state coffers, possibly at the expense of Boston or the towns. As lieutenant governor, he needs to adopt a more global view. Nobody seems to be doubting that he can do this.

As for Rushton, he's lost my (potential) vote for mayor next year. Chucking bombs at the incoming mayor before she's had a chance to set her own tone -- especially with such transparent motives -- doesn't sit well. Nor does his rah-rah conception of what a mayor does (it's worth noting that in Worcester, unlike some other cities, the mayor is the chairman of the City Council and School Committee -- really a chief legislator, not an executive). The mayor has to be both a visionary and a realist. If Rushton feels only a "vibrant present," and doesn't see empty buildings on Main Street, he's not looking at the Worcester I live in.

If he can find that "spot for an upscale boutique," maybe he should run for mayor there.