Rantz: Gov. Inslee throws fit on TV in argument with himself on coronavirus
During an interview on Q13 FOX, Governor Jay Inslee threw a fit while arguing with himself about his coronavirus policies. Technically, reporter Brandi Kruse was interviewing him, but Inslee kept arguing a point he’s the only one making. It was a train-wreck.
Since he can’t quite defend his coronavirus stay-at-home order, probably because it’s wildly inconsistent and not based in science or data, Inslee debates a strawman argument. It’s quite transparent.
Inslee claims that unnamed critics believe elderly Washingtonians don’t matter. Their lives, the pretend-critics argue, do not matter. And in that argument (that no one is making), Inslee presents himself as a hero fighting for seniors, casting aside actual critics (which he falsely ascribes this insensitive claim to) as inhumane. It’s a sleazy, desperate attack.
Inslee throws a fit over coronavirus question
Citing imaginary politicians, Inslee told Kruse that some argue Washington state should end social distancing and leave the elderly to die due to the coronavirus.
“We have some politicians saying ‘oh these are … most of the people are over the age of 60 who lose their lives so we just really shouldn’t worry about that too much,'” Inslee told Kruse, quoting a nonexistent politician before setting himself up as a hero. “I take extreme exception to that position. I believe that it is not consistent with any version of humanity and as a 69-year-old, I believe that 69-year-olds can actually be productive.”
Kruse would rightly note she’s not heard politicians make that claim. She has heard the idea, which I’ve talked about on this blog and on my show, that you can reopen parts of the economy while issuing more rigorous self-isolation for those most susceptible to mortality rates of the coronavirus.
He didn’t like Kruse getting in the way of his talking points.
Wait, what? Seriously, huh?
Inslee said it would be “impossible” to offer isolation for the elderly, while relaxing the stay-at-home order for others.
“We’re not going to take people, once they reach age 65, and put them on a desert island alone, segregated forever from our society,” Inslee ridiculously responded.
What in the world is he talking about? Seriously: What in the world is he talking about? If this doesn’t make any sense it’s because literally no one has said that. No one’s even come close to saying that. Kruse pushed back, telling him no one is actually making that claim.
“No, we’re not going to permanently tell people over the age of 60 or 65 that they’re no longer part of our community,” Inslee mused, again citing a plan literally no politician (or anyone?) has ever uttered.
Kruse would interject and again explain that no one is saying that. Inslee would then snap and have a fit: “Brandi, if you would like to have a discussion, I would like to finish my point.”
Kruse responded that she wanted to make sure they left “hyperbole” out of the discussion. He got more testy, asking to finish his answer: “Is that OK with you?” (Inslee isn’t used to long-form interviews where there are follow-ups and interjections, something he’s prevented during his press briefings so that he’s not embarrassed too much).
“I don’t know if you have older people in your life or not, but the alternative of trying to tell those people that they cannot socialize with you for the rest of their life is just not tenable,” Inslee said, pretending someone is making that point.
Arguing with himself
Jay Inslee is arguing with himself. He goes on to claim he’s personally heard that older people aren’t worthy of protection but as you’ll notice, he doesn’t actually name anyone. Who is making those claims? No one. He’s the only one making that point because he believes it’s the only argument that he can win. He’s right about that.
Data and science do not guide Inslee, he just gives the illusion of it by saying “data” and “science” without actually citing it. There was no data or science to justify keeping open publicly funded construction projects, but banning privately funded projects. There was no basis in science to argue fishing alone in a boat is dangerous.
Does anyone think he’s even capable of understanding the data and science he reads off his script? His staff has to present it as drawings of dials, otherwise it would confuse him. In fact, he’s still confused, which explains why his guidance changes on a dime. That, and his end goal, he admits, is to exploit these deaths to push for radical environmentalist policies.
This interview was embarrassing. So much so, Inslee defenders tried to imply the interview was sensationalist and edited out of context. When folks pushed back on criticism from State Rep. Emily Wicks (D-WA38), for example, the appointee retreated.
There was a moment where I did genuinely feel sorry for Inslee. It’s not so much that I feel bad that he’s in over his head and has no idea what he’s doing. That, frankly, scares me.
I felt bad because I think the argument he had with himself was revealing. He’s scared that he, as a 69-year-old who may not win re-election, may be cast aside and forgotten. I think his arguments with himself are a kind of talk therapy.
And while I don’t know if he’ll win re-election, I can only assume Washington history will forget him. And it might feel like he’s been been sent to a desert island, unable to socialize with anyone ever again. I hope he at least gets a good island — Vashon?
Listen to the Jason Rantz Show weekday afternoons from 3-6 p.m. on KTTH 770 AM (or HD Radio 97.3 FM HD-Channel 3). Subscribe to the podcast here. Follow @JasonRantz on Twitter and Instagram or like me on Facebook.