Smear Job

The smear:

Integrity: The Child Scott Walker Left Behind

Bernadette Gillick was a college freshman in 1988 when she first met Scott Walker. It was spring semester, and she had just transferred to Marquette University. She was assigned a room in O’Donnell Hall (then a women’s dormitory), which she shared with her new roommate, Ruth (not her real name). Ruth was dating Scott Walker, who was 20 at the time, and, according to Bernadette, Ruth was deeply in love with him.

Midway through that spring semester, Bernadette alleges, Ruth found out she was pregnant. She informed her boyfriend, Scott, and initially he was supportive. That support changed to callous indifference for his girlfriend’s predicament after Scott informed his parents of the pregnancy.

Bernadette reports that at this point Scott began denying that he was the father of the baby, and when Ruth said she was considering an abortion, he claimed he didn’t care, as he wasn’t the father anyway.

Bernadette remembers being present when Ruth was dealing with the wrath of Scott’s mother, who allegedly admonished Ruth for trying to “ruin [her son’s] reputation.”

“I supported her [Ruth] as he [Scott] went from encouraging her to get an abortion, to telling me it was in my best interest to keep my mouth shut, to denying that he was the father and having his own mother call her and tell her to stop erroneously accusing her son of paternity,” Bernadette recounts.

It was a “horrible time” for her friend. “Imagine her being 18 years old and pregnant, walking around Marquette’s Jesuit Catholic campus with her boyfriend denying he was the father,” says Bernadette.

The truth:

“Daniel Bice, the ‘Watchdog’ reporter of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Online interviewed the anonymous woman who had the baby, but she adamantly denied that Scott Walker was the father according to a comment by Daniel Bice to the linked story.”

Remember the good old days when lefties took pride in being the good guys and playing clean?

About Klown Mom

I'm old and I can do what I want.
This entry was posted in Disingenuous Democrats, Politics and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

64 Responses to Smear Job

  1. elliesmom says:

    That was before my time . . .

  2. myiq2xu says:

    Remember the good old days when lefties took pride in being the good guys and playing clean?

    Did they change or was I just blind?

    • yttik says:

      I had one eye open, but I spent most of my life convincing myself that I had to overlook their faults because the other party was worse. The problem is, you go down that road and you can never hold the Dems accountable because nothing they do will ever be as bad as the other guys. It’s kind of like being a battered woman who has convinced herself to never leave because she might meet somebody worse.

      I hit bottom on May 31, 2008, and have been free ever since.

    • elliesmom says:

      If you’re only looking at presidential politics, then maybe there have been some Democrats who prided themselves on being good guys and playing clean, but the Democratic Party as a whole? No, they’ve always been willing to go down and dirty. They even idolize some of the worst – like Earl Long and James Michael Curley with award winning books and movies. The jokes about the Kennedys not buying one more vote than they needed are only funny because we suspect it was true.

  3. HELENK says:

    well they warned that the democrats would run a dirty campaign. So there will throw every thing they can think of to smear an opponent.
    If they are willing to sacrifice national security to keep backtrack in office to them what is the reputation of one man????

    they are so low they could crawl under a dime with a top hat on

  4. DandyTiger says:

    This level of mud slinging is a quality of character issue. Sure, there’s dirty politics all around, but when you go this low, you’re evil. In this case the Dem campaign is doing evil. I hope they lose in every race they’re in.

  5. Lola-at-Large says:

    Aaaaaand I was right. Top story at Memeorandum. That place is the (old) Enquirer of politics.

  6. votermom says:

    Didn’t they give McCain a love child too in 2008? *yawn*
    So boring, these smear remakes.

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      2000. That was the Bush team who smeared him with a “lovechild” (really the child was adopted) in NC during the primary. Cost him his momentum and effectively ended his campaign.

      That said, DailyKos commenters are FREAKING out over this story. They are infighting like mad over whether they should be sniggering fools over this, or cautiously wait for more info before being sniggering fools over this. A few are concerned that such stories reflect badly on the left. It’s been a wild ride comment-surfing over there. I just keep thinking “divide & conquer” as I read them. Heh.

      • votermom says:

        I wasn’t paying attention to the GOP primary in 2000 so I just heard about it in 2008 when they dredged it back up.

        Although, marKos admits to being a Bushie before he turned “Dem”, so he could literally have pushed both smears for all I know.

      • Oswald says:

        An adopted child is a love child.

  7. Lola-at-Large says:

    Randomly modded again, and didn’t even have a link. Sheesh

  8. HELENK says:

    now pelosi is saying Hillary is the best shot in 2016.
    a little late nancy, you and your buddies sold out the party and the country and nothing can help you now

    • votermom says:

      Oh , *now* Nancy wants Hillary to be President? 👿

    • DandyTiger says:

      Why on earth would Hillary run again? What, so she could win the primaries again and still not be selected. Been there, done that.

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      Buy one more (term) get one real president free. That strategy is as likely to work as Obama/Axelrod’s “Head on! Apply directly to the forehead!” repetition strategy.

  9. WMCB says:

    I actually think this will hurt Barrett, not Walker. Stories about an “anonymous” Baby Mama from decades ago, trotted out 2 days before an election, is not going to win any voters.

  10. I remember running for Congress in 1994 and 96 with enough money to go negative. Negative campaigning was a wedge issue for Democrats back then. I went negative (a tame affair compared to today!!) and got alot of blowback from my own kind. It all looks so quaint compared to today…….

  11. WMCB says:

    LOL! It gets better. The reporter from the Journal who checked it out elaborates:

    I am getting a lot of emails because of this post. Two things: (1) I tracked down and talked to Dr. Gillick’s freshman-year roommate at MU yesterday, and she adamantly denies that Walker is the father of her child. Yes, she got pregnant as a first-year student, but she believes Dr. Gillick is mixing up stories; and (2) I Can Read CCAP has taken a family court suit involving Scott Alan Walker and mixed it up with the governor, Scott Kevin Walker.

    It’s an unsourced rumor based on a family court filing about a DIFFERENT Scott Walker. Reporter talked to the roommate – confirmed was not the same Scott Walker.

  12. Oswald says:

    Dig, baby, dig!

    WCMC is not alleging that Walker fathered the child; we are reporting the allegations made by someone who has every appearance of credibility and no discernible ulterior motive. We are giving Dr. Gillick the opportunity to recount her memory of the Walker she knew at Marquette just as we gave Dr. Barry the same opportunity. Both deserve to be heard.

    According to Dr. Gillick’s attorney, Michael Fargione, who was present for an interview of Dr. Gillick conducted by Dave Umhoefer from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel last week, he asked Dr. Gillick, “How do you know it was this Scott Walker?” She told him she had multiple conversations with him because her roommate was dating him. She exchanged words with him directly and in person after, as she alleges, he turned on her roommate once she notified him of her pregnancy and became unsupportive of her. “There is no mistake that it’s him,” she said.

    We contacted “Ruth” for her comments on the story and she had this to say: “I can confirm that it was not Scott Walker who is my daughter’s father.” When confronted with the details of Dr. Gillick’s allegations and asked about the identity of the roommate in question, “Ruth” went on to say, “Unfortunately, I don’t know her name. But it was…[pause] I do know that one of Bernadette’s roommates, either sophomore or junior year, was pregnant and had a child while she was at Marquette. So that would have been either a year or two after I had had [my child]. And I don’t know whether, you know, I’d have no idea, to be honest with you, if Scott Walker was the father.”

    Upon hearing the comments made by Dr. Gillick’s former roommate, Mike Fargione, her attorney, says Dr. Gillick stands by her statements and the timeline of her original story.

    • SophieCT says:

      I can’t tell yet who’s telling the truth and who’s lying. No one believed the Enquirer story about Edwards.

      That being said, I think there’s plenty in Walker’s record to run against and this isn’t necessary.

      • angienc says:

        I’ll give you a hint: the person who is relating double-hearsay is the one with no credibility.

    • WMCB says:

      Oh, bullshit with the “we are not alleging anything, we are reporting that someone else is alleging.

      Either name the person, supply some other evidence, or kill the story. Lots of people have alleged a lot of things about politicians. You don’t print it unless you have something more than “someone said.”

      • SophieCT says:

        LOL!! Just like the party is not like it used to be, journalism isn’t what it used to be. And that’s extending the definition of journalism to blogging, which is quite a leap sometimes!

  13. DeniseVB says:

    Funny stuff at #WiunionDesperation

    • cj says:

      I saw some of those tweets yesterday…had to stop reading them :shiver:

      Nice party you’ve got goin’ there Donna, hope it was worth it. Obama’s gotta go if only to get these horrible creatures to slither back under their rocks.

    • threewickets says:

      So much hypocrisy and delusion to be found there all around. I generally enjoy and appreciate the debates at FDL, but get on the topic of the middle east, terrorism, or god forbid the joos, and they turn into a pack of hyenas.

  14. HELENK says:

    this is going to cost some money to the taxpayer.
    democrats are not only stupid they are expensive

  15. DeniseVB says:

    Guess we’re all from Wisconsin this week. Wasn’t it Obama who said “Elections have consequences” ?

  16. Lola-at-Large says:

  17. HELENK says:

    Iowa Hawk

    #Thingamajig The word Obama was looking for was ‘thermostat.’ He was in a thermostat factory, surround by boxes emblazoned “thermostat.”

  18. HELENK says:

    tomorrow will be interesting to watch. The decision made in Wisconsin is a harbinger of where the country could go and whether or not it will go in a direction good for the people

  19. JeanLouise says:

    Maybe the mother was paid off by Walker or his supporters to deny Walker’s paternity of the child. God knows that Walker has gotten enough money from the Koch brothers to make that possible. Lest anyone claim that that doesn’t happen, this is the place where I mention John Edwards.

  20. HELENK says:

    maybe before voting tomorrow the union members should read this

    so who’s your daddy?????

Comments are closed.