Readers Write: Minnesota government, gun violence, Trump’s comments on Rob Reiner

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Columnist Rochelle Olson’s Dec. 16 opinion piece, “Weigh Walz’s fraud response against how MAGA tactics affect this state,” presents two bad options as if they’re our only choices.

This is Coke vs. Pepsi politics. Both parties offer us their candidate and act like those are our only options. The Republicans will weaponize fraud. The Democrats will defend Gov. Tim Walz as the lesser evil. Neither will offer us what we actually need: better choices.

Where are the politicians — DFL or otherwise — willing to challenge these predetermined options? Why isn’t anyone saying, “We can do better than both of these”?

The fraud scandals are real. Walz’s response was inadequate. But framing the election as “Walz or MAGA” just reinforces the tired two-party trap that keeps giving us bad choices.

We don’t need articles telling us to pick between two flawed options. We need journalists asking why we’re stuck with them in the first place.

Jim Barrett, Minneapolis

•••

In response to Jeff Blodgett’s commentary on Walz (“Gov. Tim Walz deserves re-election, and could win,” Strib Voices, Dec. 16), here is a different view. Walz does not deserve re-election; you can’t run a state with absolutely zero fiscal responsibility or accountability. Free school meals are not needed for those who can afford it. The child tax credit isn’t addressing child care cost which, in our state, is one of the highest in the country. The budget is now projected to have a $3 billion deficit (how did this happen with an almost $18 billion surplus just a few years ago?). So much money has been spent or stolen, Minnesota can no longer help those truly in need. Not to mention education rankings plummeting, and people exiting this state, during the Walz administration.

We need real leadership with some fiscal responsibility and critical thinking, not a self-proclaimed knucklehead.

Tamara Rath, Eden Prairie

I read, with great interest, the column “Weigh Walz’s fraud response against how MAGA tactics affect this state.”

Walz has put forward a thoughtful response to the issue with Minnesota’s financial fraud. Instead of a knee-jerk reaction, Walz has taken a breath and implemented a plan to move forward. He has taken time to find, recruit and enlist the services of one of Minnesota’s best and named Tim O’Malley as Minnesota’s fraud czar. Walz has not caved to Republican tactics; he has not called people names or degraded people, has not sent ranting messages in the middle of the night and hasn’t given a reflexive response. Walz’s response and approach has been measured. This is the kind of thoughtfulness I want in a leader.

While fraud is despicable and illegal, there are Republicans in the Minnesota House and Senate who also could have sounded the alarm, including House Speaker Lisa Demuth. If the fraud was so obvious, as Republicans would have us believe, I wonder why no red flags were raised. The Republicans are debasing Walz but, as we have seen with Republicans on the national level with health care, not one of them has offered an inkling of a plan to deal with the fraud. Not one Republican, including Demuth, has put their money where their mouth is. It’s easy to point out a problem; it is much more difficult to remedy that problem.

Regardless of whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, or whether or not you think Walz should run for a third term, we should all be behind the governor’s plan to eradicate fraud from occurring in Minnesota. It’s not a “concept of a plan.” Walz’s plan is a thoughtful, manageable path to move forward.

Dan McKenzie, Plymouth

In a Dec. 4 Star Tribune article about the MyPillow guy’s run for Minnesota governor, the summary described Mike Lindell, without apparent irony, as a “sophist” (“Lindell files paperwork to run for Minnesota governor”). An interesting description! Per an Oxford dictionary, a sophist in ancient Greece was a paid teacher of philosophy, often focused on helping students debunk fallacious arguments. In modern use, “sophist” has come to connote a person who uses clever but wrong or specious arguments. Which meaning, one wonders, did the summary writer have in mind? Since Lindell famously specializes in advancing, not debunking, specious claims, we can rule out the old sense. “Sophist” in its newer sense might fit better, though the “clever” part might be a stretch.

Paul Zorn, Northfield

The recent letter to the editor questioning the need to strengthen Minnesota’s laws around firearms on school property missed a critical point: When it comes to keeping students, schools and communities safe from gun violence, the fact that it is “generally not legal to carry a firearm to a high school football or hockey game” is not good enough (“School property proposal has shaky basis,” Readers Write, Nov. 30).

Current law prohibits carrying a firearm on school grounds but includes a significant loophole. Individuals may bring a gun into a classroom, a high school football or hockey game or a school science fair if they receive permission from the principal. In practice, this so-called “exception” creates confusion, uneven enforcement and unnecessary risk. School administrators should be focused on educating and protecting students, not deciding who may carry a weapon into a gym or auditorium. The proposed legislation closes this loophole, creating clear, consistent and enforceable rules. When you are talking about crowded school events filled with students and families, clarity matters.

There is also a gap in how firearms are stored in vehicles parked on school property. Minnesota’s permit-to-carry statute relies on vague and outdated storage requirements, and the consequences are clear: Nationally, a firearm is stolen from a vehicle every nine minutes. On school grounds, where our kids learn, gather and play, accountability must be stronger, not weaker.

“Generally not legal” leads to “generally” safe schools. That is not an acceptable standard. We have a responsibility to put student safety first, clearly and unequivocally.

Julie Greene, Edina

The writer is the state representative for House District 50A.

Good grief, does the man have no shame at all? (“Trump blames Reiner for his own death,” Dec. 16.) Must our president politicize every single thing that happens in America or elsewhere? His comments regarding the death of Rob Reiner and his wife, Michele, are a new low, even for a man who is hellbent on setting new lows for himself every day. I for one am sick, and I’m sure most Americans are too, of the weaponization and politicization of every cultural event he doesn’t like. His ego and lack of self-control simply will not let him be silent and respectful to events such as the killing of the Reiners. He has a sickness about him that needs attention and treatment but neither he nor any of his supporters see fit to call it out and get him some help. Does his family not see this condition? Do his supporters not see this condition? Or, do they all see it but don’t think it’s an issue and actually like and encourage it?

It’s truly sad that this is the man chosen to lead a great country but all he has to offer is negativity and criticism at every opportunity — especially when a tragedy such as the Reiners’ killing occurs.