For What It's Worth

5/22/2011

Here I am, five months pregnant. Each month on the same day, my husband would snap a photo of me at our health club. By this time we knew our baby was going to face some serious medical challenges, and with all the Braxton-Hicks contractions, I was only allowed to walk the track slowly. A month later I was home for the duration on bed rest, eating a lot of Rocky Road ice cream, and watching the O.J. trial.

The photo is 16-years-old now, as is our son, and the quality rather poor (although our son is fabulous!) But I know for a fact there was no room for a square pillow in there.

I also know that every part of me got bigger - and stayed bigger. Which leads me to say that on Wednesday, I'll post my next discussion with Prof. Brad Scharlott about things that get big and then small and then bigger, and, well, you know.

On Tuesday, I simply must post one of my Quick Take Tuesday interviews - this time with rocker Greg Kihn - that I've had in my "evergreen" file for too long. You know his songs, so enjoy the piece. It's fast, fun and you can even sing along.

Feel free to comment on anything here. And if Blue Dog AK checks in, can you please reach me at my Contact page?

Cheers, Laura

regina link

5/22/2011 05:55:48 pm

Laura,

We must be really weird. I also had a bump that became very apparent at 5 months and it kept growing...

DebinOH

5/23/2011 01:18:58 am

Laura, I guess you didn't know about those tight abs and what they could do for you;)

5/23/2011 02:18:11 am

This would be like Sarah in January 2008, even before the massage therapist saw no evidence of pregnancy.

She gave a State of the State address and worked with the Legislature and no one noticed the belly.

This was even before the flat belly still from the video of her walking briskly in heels in icy Juneau holding a coffee cup.

And well before she could bend a-l-l the way over while at the Newsweek meeting.

Except that it was your first and Sarah's fifth time to be five months pregnant.

Except that you were in your thirties and she in her fourties.

Except that you walked a track, and she thrashed her guts, or something like that.

etc.

The truth is obvious. Spiral of silence.

mumimor

5/23/2011 04:41:37 am

We are all pregnant in different ways. I remembered this story when I saw your picture: http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/05/07/would-you-run-a-marathon-pregnant-this-mom-has-three-times/
This woman ran a marathon while she was 8 months pregnant.
I couldn't have done that - I had a lot of ligament problems. But I have never in my life been as "lean and mean" as six months after my second childbirth at 35.

As far as I can tell, SP is lying about something. But in order to figure out what and why, I think it's important to make sure every argument is sufficiently falsified.

mumimor

5/23/2011 04:42:25 am

Oh, and what a lovely picture to have :-)

Laura Novak link

5/23/2011 07:45:47 am

Thank you! Yes, and I recall how disturbing the Braxton-Hicks were. I often sat down or stopped what I was doing. And that was before 6 months!

Onward!

Bobcat Logic

5/24/2011 07:36:10 am

Laura,

You look like any other slender woman would at 5 months of pregnancy.

And now ...let's review where Sarah was at a much later date in her alleged pregnancy.

Remember that she announced that she was 7 months pregnant on March 5, the day after McCain became the obvious GOP nominee -- in other words, she would have been two months further along than you are in this picture.

But, on February 23, 2008, she reportedly attended a meeting of the National Governor's Association in Washington, DC, where she had a 20 minute personal meeting with John and Cindy McCain and dinner with him and other VP aspirants. And no one noticed?

Palin was accompanied on the DC trip in late Feb 2008 by a security detail, one of whom reported seeing her in jeans showing no sign of pregnancy.

Interestingly, only a few days before McCain and Palin met in DC, the New York Times had run a story about McCain's alleged romantic liaison with lobbyist Vicki Iseman.

Vicki Iseman, in turn, was employed by the very wealthy Fundamentalist Christian Broadcaster, Lowell "Bud" Paxson.

Paxson had previously been at the center of other ethical troubles involving McCain, who apparently accepted major favors and compensation from Paxson for his Senatorial vote on legislation favorable to Paxson's broadcasting interests.

Although the NY Times was soon to shut down their investigation on the Iseman/McCain story -- for reasons that remain unclear -- the NYT never retracted the story.

A month and a half later, Palin declared the birth of "Trig Paxson Van Palin"

rubbernecking

5/24/2011 09:41:54 am

@Bobcat Logic, in 1999 and 2000 McCain sent letters to the FCC urging them to vote quickly on a matter important to Paxson Communications. Although McCain did not ask the FCC to vote in a particular way, the FCC Chairman was unhappy with the interference and made the letters public. An investigation revealed that McCain had sent similar letters on behalf of other campaign donors. GWB's 2000 campaign made some noise about McCain's hypocrisy as a reformer.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/01/mccain-fcc-lobbying/

In Feb 2008 NYT wrote an article about McCain's blindness to his own potential conflicts of self interest. The article discussed his friendship with the female lobbyist who asked him to write the letters to the FCC. Most readers got distracted by allegations of anonymous sources that suspected McCain had an affair with the lobbyist in 1999-2000. The larger point was overlooked: McCain's inflated self-regard of his own honor was a major liability in his judgment and actions.

Paxson may be around on the Christian lecture circuit but I'm not aware of him having political clout in 2008. Naming her kid for Bud Paxson seems equivalent to naming her kid after Charles Keating. It seems like a counter-productive strategy for building a relationship with McCain.

Bobcat Logic

5/24/2011 09:54:23 am

@ rubbernecking

Perhaps naming Trig "Paxson" (which the Palins claimed referred to a "snowmachine" locale) was a subtle warning to McCain about who really controlled the strings (the Fundies and Neocons who backed her candidacy/Mission from God over McCain's supposed objections).

Palin says there are no coincidences, and I'm inclined to believe her, in this case.

I doubt that McCain was effectively able to veto a choice that had already been made for him, and I don't see Palin trying at any point to "build a relationship" with him or his family. She had "gone rogue" from the beginning.

Laura Novak link

5/24/2011 09:54:36 am

And that's just the thing about Mrs. Palin: Whatever it is, it's odd. A baby is named Tripp and a woman who alleges a for-profit relationship with the then-governor's husband...and what's her name? Gee, even the same spelling! It never ceases to amaze me the coincidences that come from that family.

I am in awe of both of your political writing on this subject. Great that you've both followed it so closely. Thank you for writing!

rubbernecking

5/24/2011 12:18:55 pm

@Bobcat Logic, I agree with you that the anti-abortion wing of the Republican party made the VP choice for McCain.

I don't follow Christian media so perhaps Paxson is more influential than I realized. In my secular bubble, it's only the really virulent guys like Franklin Graham and James Dobson that registered on my radar.

Bobcat Logic

5/24/2011 12:34:38 pm

@rubbernecking

Paxson stays out of the limelight (except in his unusually reckless dealings with McCain), and yes Graham and Dobson are in this, as well.

rubbernecking

5/25/2011 12:44:45 am

@Bobcat Logic, I'd like one day to see the prominent political bloggers admit they ignored a major story in the Wild Ride. Most political junkies will not agree that Paxson Communication had "unusually reckless" dealings with McCain. McCain wrote similar letters to the FCC on behalf of other very large donors like ATT, BellSouth, and Ameritech. McCain's dealings with Paxson were business-as-usual for Senators. It was newsworthy because McCain's private actions seemed in conflict with his public reform rhetoric and his Campaign Finance legislation.

If your goal is prove the influence of the evangelical community on McCain's VP choice, I think there's lots of evidence of this. I can provide links to multiple news stories about this.

I started to look into Paxson's 2008 activities when you asked fellow readers in a 5/9 comment to google Paxson/McCain. If Paxson remains an important leader within the political evangelical community, I was not able to find evidence based on what you provided.

This investigation definitely benefits from brainstorming and creative insights. I'm not trying to discourage you. I'm trying to think about the larger audience we need to convince and what type of evidence they will find compelling.

rubbernecking

5/25/2011 01:51:38 am

Sorry to be so cranky. I'm annoyed by guys like Weigel/Klein/Elliot/Ygelias who should be skeptical about heroic tales told by politicians. They all see this research as the quest for Bristol's secret diary. Palin's decision to publicize her crazy tale in a government-issued press release and the RGA mailing list was all they needed to question Palin's political judgment. Palin's decision to raise millions off this crazy story in a book and the lecture circuit is all that's needed to keep this investigation open.

It's astonishing that Oprah took more grief (and responsibility!) for believing James Frey than political journalists have taken for accepting the Wild Ride.

Bobcat Logic

5/25/2011 03:22:02 am

@ rubbernecking

check out this source (there are more)

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08054/859894-176.stm

Paxson seems to take an almost perverse glee in openly contradicting McCain who had previously denied meeting with either Paxson or Iseman on the FCC matter.

This story is dated Feb 23, 2008, by the way, the day Palin and other possible VP choices were meeting with McCain in DC.

Paxson, contrary to McCain's version of events, spoke of several meetings he had had with McCain -- meetings that had been arranged by Vicki Iseman, and which she had attended:

"The woman was a professional," said Paxson, "She was good. She could get us meetings."

Meanwhile, the NY Times was publishing accounts of McCain's romantic involvement with Iseman, who greatly resembled the young Cindy McCain.

I don't know how Paxson could have been unaware of these stories, or why he chose to underscore them in this manner, but he created a situation of profound embarrassment for McCain.

I would call Paxson's actions reckless (assuming that he was trying to help McCain.)

If, on the other hand, he was signaling to McCain to forget about Lieberman as a possible running mate or else Paxson would reveal even more to the press...well, then it starts to make more sense, at least to me.

guest

5/30/2011 01:59:07 pm

Interesting, the photo posted by mumimor of the 8-months-pregnant marathoner? She owns a bootcamp and looks fabulously buff.
She also looks unequivocally pregnant. From the front.
That's the photo to use for comparison with Sarah Palin.

see here link

6/18/2013 05:07:37 pm

Hey, thats a cute baby bump. I didn't have a big belly when I was pregnant. After scanning doctors told me that, there is nothing to worry about it and suggested to eat a lot of fruits. By God's grace, my son is born without any difficulty. But, he was so tiny!

Comments are closed.

For What It's Worth

Laura Novak

Blogs I Read

Categories

Archives