It Looks Like We’ve Discovered Gloria Allred’s Romney-Bashing October Surprise

The Gateway Pundit ^ | 10/21/12 | Jim Hoft

[Nachum]

On Friday Drudge teased that far left sensationalist Gloria Allred was about to drop a bomb on the Romney Campaign.

Allred has a reputation of dragging perceived female victims in front of the camera as props to bash Republican candidates. In October 2010 Allred dragged out illegal alien Nicki Diaz to attack heartless Meg Whitman. Minaj was upset Whitman didn’t buy her child a present and claimed Meg took advantage of her despite the fact she made a good wage. In November 2011 she dragged out Sharon Bialek who accused Herman Cain of sexual abuse.

So it is likely this year’s October surprise is Carrel Hilton Sheldon, a former Mormon.

The book Horror Stories: Mitt Romney’s Shameful Record with Mormon Women details Mitt Romney’s “psychological intimidation and bullying” during his role as a Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The report describes how Romney “tried to bully” Carrel Hilton Sheldon when she was suffering through a difficult pregnancy into not having an abortion. AlterNet reported:

A far more ominous tale in the Romney canon also took place that summer, one that has been largely swept under the rug as the former governor of Massachusetts challenges incumbent Barack Obama for the presidency. There have been no songs written about it, no cartoons, no gags on late-night television, no magazine covers.

It was in August of that year, shortly after the Romney family returned from their vacation to Lake Huron, that a pregnant woman in her late 30s—Carrel Hilton Sheldon—was informed

[berdie]

A liar???

I have always enjoyed your posts in the past. Not this evening.

[roamer_1]

There's no guarantees of anything in life.

True, but for death and taxes. ; )

That "conservative" Senate candidate could turn out to be another Justice Roberts, or any other Republican who has chosen to work with the Dems.

While generally true, odds are against it due to his voting record, which was assembled without the glare of the campaign. No doubt one can assume that what he's done in the past is what he'll do again, or sommore... which is why I am *for* him (and *against* Romney). That is why Conservatives have always (and should always) based their decisions upon the record.

The only thing I'd regret down the road is not trying to get rid of Obama now. We know what his agenda is.

That is a prediction based in ignorance, IMHO. Much of what Obama is doing nationally, Romney did, or helped to do to Mass. decades ago. And much of that was already in the works in Michigan because of his parents decades before that.

I'd rather vote against an horrendous agenda I know will continue with Obama, than not vote because I assume something that hasn't happened yet. That's the difference between you and me.

See above. It has happened. What you could argue is nothing but a sense of scale, and a hope that Romney will not super-size once he ascends to a position of power that will allow him to...

There is not much difference between a Communist, a Socialist, and a Liberal. In the end, it is all the same. And that end, whether Romney or Obama, is what you are voting *for* (no offense meant). I will NOT vote *for* the same. That, FRiend, is the difference you speak of.

[Mr. K]

seriously? I HOPE this is it!!

[af_vet_1981]

hope this is the big surprise. It kinda confirms he’s pro-life - which will further energize his base.

LOL; Gloria Allread convinces JimRob that Romney is pro-life after all ... October Surprise!

[Forward the Light Brigade]

This looks rather weak—and a bit like pulling at straws. It will change nothing and only win the Abortion on Demand—abortion as birth control— women. (How many Abortions had Gloria had?) The Debate tomorrow will tell the tale—after that the landslide of support for the GOP -— Not only will the Dems lose the White House but the Senate and governorship’s as well. The Party will be crushed and need to reform itself (its needed that for a long while).

[mass55th]

We shall see, what we shall see.

In regard to your comment about the guarantee of death and taxes, I think we can add FR bogging down during debates and election night to that mix.

[ansel12]

Look at your posts, and your use of Reagan, you wanted to create a lie.

To: roamer_1
I think President Reagan signed abortion legislation when he was governor of California.
Just sayin’
183 posted on Sun Oct 21 2012 15:27:45 GMT-0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) by berdie

When I cleared up your misleading use of Reagan, you came back implying just what I said you were implying about him.

*”The only purpose I had in answering your post at all is the phrases “always this” or “always that”. Let’s face it these people are politicians. They are not “always” anything.”*

Look at your posts about Reagan again, I call that lying.

This was accurate.
“”You are worse than a cynic, you are a liar, you just implied again that Reagan was once pro-abortion and switched, by using that “always this” or “always that” remark, Reagan was “always” pro-life, just as Romney was “always” pro-abortion, his own words verify that from 1963 to 2005.””

[roamer_1]

I am not a Romneybot in the least.

I didn't say you were.

He was my next to the last choice.

IMO, as a conservative, he should not be a choice *at all*.

But it is what it is.

yup.

It will either be Romney or Obama.

A distinction without a difference.

I have read the bill.I don’t doubt that Reagan had regrets when he signed it into law and then saw how it was abused. But it really isn’t a “scurrilous charge” nor is it untrue.

It is not untrue - But it is scurrilous to lead the uninformed reader to believe that Reagan was ever Pro-Choice. Without qualifying your statement, declaring that 'Reagan signed a pro-abortion bill' leaves the reader to infer exactly that. And it offends me greatly.

At one time Reagan said abortion wasn’t his central focus (not verbatim but I will find the exact quote if you need it).

So?

The point being, the subject of this thread is about a possible charge from Allred about how Romney discouraged a parishoner from abortion. Perhaps Romney’s personal beliefs on the subject aren’t that far off base.

See my originating post for comment:

But many liberals assuage their conscience with this despicable sort of demarcation - Being personally Pro-Life, but actively promoting pro-choice positions publicly. I find this to be even more abhorrent than someone who is completely pro-choice, as the personal conviction should be guiding the public action.

I heard an interview with Michael Reagan a couple of months ago. He said one thing that has stuck with me...”We weren’t looking for RR when we found him.”

I was.

I don’t think Romney is another Reagan. Those are pretty large boots to fill. Sadly I fear we may not have another. The times are very different.

Nope. Not another Reagan. Probably and predictably another FDR.

My prayer is that Romney can beat Obama. I know for a fact what he is and represents.

Replacing one liberal with another will solve nothing, and IMO, will only embarrass you eventually... and do irreparable damage to Conservatism as he is allowed to claim the mantle.

(BTW, your down ticket votes are very important.)

I know : )

[roamer_1]

Smearing any other member here as being a “pimp” for Romney is shameful.

Bullcrap. There are PLENTY of freepers pimping him.

Do you call these other individuals pimps, as well?

Yup.

[berdie]

I have one question..

Did or did not Reagan sign pro abort legislation?

I don’t care if he regretted it or the outcome.

I am not implying or lying about anything.

I was not misleading...nor did you clear up jack.

[berdie]

This thread has drifted has so far away from the original topic it’s pretty unbelievable.

I don’t care who you vote (or not) for. Trust me.

The subject was...Gloria Allred had some big October surprise about Romney encouraging a woman not to abort.

I actually make a conscience effort to stay away from threads of this sort.

My bad...

[MNJohnnie]

I'm sorry but you know you are lying yet refuse to change your behavior. There is utterly no reason to treat you with any respect when you insist on knowingly lying

The 9th Commandment is not a suggestion. Bearing False Witness is a sin.

Your refusal to respect the 9th Commandment indicates either you are a total fraud pretending to have a moral code when you don't or you are simply refusing to honor your code because your emotional hysteria over Romney winning is stronger then your morals.

Either way your behavior here is contemptible.

[MNJohnnie]

Screaming your lies louder doesn't change your fictions to fact.

The 9th Commandment is not a suggestion. You can get away with it around here, However, you still will have to answer to God one day

[roamer_1]

I see your criteria as being idealistic but not realistic.

Funny, that... because my so-called idealism is exactly what the Republicans say they stand for. If they STOOD FOR what they SAY they stand for, I would be a Republican even now.

Apparently you have not voted the Republican candidate since Reagan....

Voted for plenty. Supported even more.

Look what Ross Perot gave us...

Look at what Lincoln gave us...

I suggest you take off your rose colored glasses and try living in the real world where ideals are things we strive for but reality is what we compromise for.

I think you are confusing 'compromise' with 'capitulation'. There is plenty of room for compromise, once Conservative principles have been met.

By the time you find someone to meet your ideals, I am afraid you won't have a vote as the US will be like Cuba Venezuela, etc just a sham.

I think it already is a sham.

The liberals were winning because they used incramentalism to move the country,but now they got greedy and went for the whole banana. Is that your plan also?

No, the liberals are winning because no one opposes them. The ones who say they oppose them keep capitulating er... 'compromising'... To the point that the most liberal SOB in the Republican party is calling himself a Conservative... and they are letting him... And in fact, are gonna VOTE for him as such!

Romney certainly is not my first choice but he is head and shoulders above the alternative. A journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step and this is a step forward not backwards. If you choose to help move the country backwards that's your choice, but I think its foolish and centered in liberal thought not conservative thought. Utopia is a fantasy and changing things overnight without a bloody revolution is also a fantasy.

So the upshot of your argument is that voting for a liberal is the conservative thing to do - WAIT!... Think about that exponentially before you reply.

[roamer_1]

I think we can add FR bogging down during debates and election night to that mix.

LOL! Have a good night. Thx for the conversation.

[rolling_stone]

...So the upshot of your argument is that voting for a liberal is the conservative thing to do - WAIT!... Think about that exponentially before you reply.....

Wrong, but I knew you couldn’t see the forest for the trees....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_two_evils_principle

[kcvl]

That story obviously didn’t fly the first time it was written in April by Salon...

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/19/can_mitt_talk_to_women/

[roamer_1]

I agree with your post. I did not vote for Romney as his liberal positions are not mine, nor, in my opinion, are some of his positions Christian.

Thanks for your reply and support. As to your opinion, I must heartily concur. : )

[roamer_1]

Lesser_of_two_evils_principle

What hath light to do with darkness??

[mass55th]

Have a good night too!