Headlining above is from Strib, mid-item, short paragraphs apart.
It defines why Walz is wrong. He's done nothing to fix anything and yet he complains.
The Crabgrass opinion is the issue is too complicated for do-nothings, when the problem is a clear and present danger posed by bad cops. Getting rid of them will have to be made easier, and some things cops are unfit to do will be moved to people who are fit to do it. Cops, what is their purpose except to use force from time to time to enforce government will. So government will IS the ultimate problem, but making the changes needed there IS a complicated problem.
Walz is wrong and Walz was not my first choice back then either. Erin Murphy was. Walz is what we were given by inner party operatives, and is better than nothing ["nothing" being the Republicans' inner party offering].
Public safety as the goal, or public control? They differ. Often.
It is as if Walz wants no better than present, and present is not good.
End of story?