1. Trig was born prematurely, one month ahead of schedule.
2. On April 17, the day before Trig was to be born, Gov. Palin and her husband (but not any of their children) had been in Texas for three days at an energy conference of the National Governors' Association, and she was scheduled to deliver a speech on the fourth day.
3. At 4:00 a.m. on the 17th, Gov. Palin reported she woke with what she felt were the beginnings of labor pains. She called her family physician, and together, she says, they decided that the pains were far enough apart (an hour or more) that she could stay in Texas and give her speech.
4. Although she had leaked some amniotic fluid, the labor pains did not intensify. She gave her speech as scheduled, and left immediately afterward for an 8-hour flight back to Alaska, with a stopover in Seattle, where she checked with her doctor again. On arrival at Anchorage, she drove to the Mat-Su Regional Medical Center in Wasilla (the town where she had served on the City Council and then as Mayor for ten years), and checked herself in just before midnight. Her doctor had to induce her labor, and Trig was quickly delivered at about 6:30 a.m. the next day.
Note that this where ArcXIX's version has to depart from human nature and simple logic. For if we are to believe ArcXIX's version of events, the 4:00 am incident would have been a call from her daughter Bristol in Alaska, reporting that she had started labor, and pleading with her mother to hurry home. And what does this devoted mother of four (at the time) then do? She ignores her daughter's plea and stays in Texas for another eight hours before leaving, just to deliver a speech---supremely confident, apparently, that (a) her daughter will not have the baby before she can get back, and (b) that her daughter can get through her first labor pains without her mother at her side. (Remember, this is the scenario concocted by a conservative-hating liberal.)
We also have to rope into the Grand Conspiracy an entire family, a licensed physician who is well-known throughout the area where Gov. Palin grew up, and the obstetrics staff at the medical center where Trig was eventually born. It is always the hallmark of a liberal Grand Conspiracy that so many people have to be involved in the coverup that it is a miracle of determination that no one ever breaks faith and spills the beans. (Witness, for example, the kind of vast conspiracy that has to be invoked to say that the First Folio was an elaborate ploy to make the world think that Shakespeare, and not the noble Edward de Vere, wrote the plays that it gave to the world.) We also have to credit Governor Palin with having an off-the-shelf plan, available to be invoked at any moment, to commence acting the role of a mother in labor, and to have all the pieces and players in position to cooperate in the charade---all the while the real mother is supposedly enduring a 30-hour ordeal to deliver her first child, without her mother beside her for the first 24 hours of that ordeal.
Such illogic does not faze the liberal mind. When presented with the contradictions, they simply embrace them, and go right back to repeating their crazy story. (ArcXIX even has a follow-up post touting "explosive new details." Sure.)
NEWSFLASH (how uncurmudgeonly that word sounds!): To put the kibosh on the crazy rumors spread by ArcXIX and such ilk, Sarah and her husband Todd have just issued a press release announcing that their daughter Bristol is five months with child, and plans on not only carrying it to term---take that, ArcXIX---but also on marrying the father. Let's see now---five months: August, July, June, May, and April. Too bad logic was not your strong suit, ArcXIX. [UPDATE: Here is the entire comment on this item from William Voegeli at No Left Turns: "A Rifle-Toting, Hot Librarian Grandmother for Vice President: Show me those folks who think American politics is dull."] [UPDATE2 09/06/2008: In the take-no-prisoners world of the left, the fate of ArcXIX was to have both of his/her blog entries DELETED from the DailyKos site. You can search for them, and you can even find some other references to them, but the links all lead to a message that "what you were searching for no longer exists." So much for documentation; apparently the posts had to go because they were seen as hurting Obama's campaign.]
In my humble opinion, the reason that such a scenario is not improbable in the least to people like ArcXIX is that they see themselves as capable of carrying it out. It is a truism that liberals think nothing of putting on a persona for the public; we see this happen every four years in the presidential race. Making the public think they are something different from what they are is not deception with liberal politicians, it is an instinct, because if the public saw their true character, it would never elect them. (Look what happened to John Kerry, for instance, when he tried running on a platform that waffled on pulling out of Iraq.)
But there I go casting curmudgeonly aspersions on whole groups, without the specifics that we conservatives should always have at hand. You would like an example, and it so happens I have one. Consider liberal author Jane Smiley, who blogs over at Arianna Huffington's site. She is figuratively frothing at the mouth with the instinct to attack Governor Palin (again, I shall not provide the link, in order to preserve you from the full dose of poison):
Already the Democratic pundits are worrying about whether to attack Sarah Palin -- will it look like bullying? Will it make voters sympathize with her? Will it make voters identify with her and vote for her? Women are supposed to lay off her because -- she is a woman! The thinking goes that we can't question her choices because women's choices are sacrosanct. Nor can we investigate her life (beauty queen, Christian Dominionist, links to Ted Stevens, childbearing history) because those are private issues. But what Sarah Palin shows is that once again, the right wing is adept at turning the women's movement upside down and offering us a woman who reinforces patriarchal power rather than challenges it. Palin is another Margaret Thatcher or Ann Coulter, a woman who attaches herself to men in power and then does them one better. She uses the freedom that the women's movement has brought her quash the liberation of women with other views than hers. The bitch is in there, as it is with Coulter and Thatcher and Katherine Harris. The Democrats have to bring that bitch out and she has given us the right to do it.I almost hate to despoil these pages with such ill-tempered, foul-mouthed illogic (who is calling whom a "bitch"?), but my point here is that liberal minds are immune to, and unsullied by, anything amounting to logic. Notice first the logical inversion in Ms. Smiley's brand of thinking:
. . . the right wing is adept at turning the women's movement upside down and offering us a woman who reinforces patriarchal power rather than challenges it. Palin is another Margaret Thatcher or Ann Coulter, a woman who attaches herself to men in power and then does them one better.". . . a woman who reinforces patriarchal power rather than challenges it." Really, Ms. Smiley, and what do you suppose Hillary Clinton was doing? Did she also "attach herself" to a man in power, and then seek to "do him one better"? How is "doing men in power one better" reinforcing patriarchy rather than challenging it, as you say? (And what "man in power" did Margaret Thatcher attach herself to---Prince Philip? Or the steadfastly single Ann Coulter?)
So the right wing, which has simply done what the Democrats failed to do and has given a woman the chance both to work at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and preside over the United States Senate, is "adept at turning the women's movement upside down"? But it would have kept the women's movement right-side up (whatever that direction is) had the Democrats nominated Hillary rather than Obama? I'm sorry, Ms. Smiley, but your thinking here is not up to your ire. You are obviously mad about something to do with Governor Palin, but it is not possible to tell what it is from what you write. It's like trying to read the mind of a two-year-old throwing a tantrum---it can't be done.
At the risk of souring your day completely, I will let through one more taste of Ms. Smiley:
The personal is political, after all. Here are some issues she has to explain: What is her religion and who is her pastor? Is she a Christian Dominionist and how does she feel about the separation of church and state? How does she square her roles as mother and politican? Who is taking care of the kids while she is away, including the baby? If it's the husband, I'm glad. If it's a nanny and always has been, then I want to know how a wealthy woman with a nanny helps women in general -- wealthy women with nannies are nothing new. If she's into "family values," I want to know what they are, and how the nanny views Palin's "family values." If she produced a child at 44, I want to know if she believes in birth control, because birth control is a political issue. I also want to know her views on the government's obligations to the disabled. Do the disabled children of rich people get special treatments that their parents can afford, while the disabled children of poor people get nothing? Who is the boss in her family? If it's her, then I want to know how that squares with Christian notions of patriarchy. If it's the husband, then I want to know his values and beliefs about all the issues that face the nation, and I want to know who will actually be the vice president. I want to see her tax returns. I want to see his tax returns.
. . .
We had years to relate to Hillary Clinton. We saw her through good times and bad. We saw her do things we didn't agree with, and we saw her do things we did agree with. She was an open book in many ways. Sarah Palin accused her of "whining." I didn't agree with Clinton, and I didn't support her, but I never accused her of whining. That "whining" remark is the hallmark of a bitchy and and arrogant point of view -- a characteristic of all conservative women politicians. So, Sarah thinks she can take it. I say we give it to her good.All I can say, Ms. Smiley, is that your attitude reflects your character as well, and I am certainly glad that no one has nominated you for Vice President---or for any other office, for that matter. You might want to try a different line, one that possibly would not get you worked up quite so much---say, like writing a novel (no logic needed there).
P.S.: Ewww. I'm done with the liberal mind-bent for a good long while. Here's an antidote to erase Ms. Smiley-bilely from your mind: over at her Transfigurations blog, Pat Dague has done a terrific job of pointing people to the truly worthwhile and important posts on Sarah Palin, including this one, an outstanding line-by-line comparison of her qualifications to those of Sen. Obama. Be sure to read the additional items in the comments, as well.