Talk:Tammy Bruce/Archive 1

American Psycho?
I have added a sentence regarding the campaign to stop American Psycho as I thought it might be useful to actually add a little detail regarding what Tammy did during her time at NOW. I'm sure there are people out there who are far more knowledgeable than I in this particular field, so I hope they will expand and, if necessary, correct this new part of the entry. Matthew king 04:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Her website actually said that she voted for president Bush. I'll make the correction.

Classical Liberal vs. Democrat
From the article:

"she describes herself as a classical liberal although most of her views are sharply at odds with the positions of Democratic or liberal activists, whom she routinely accuses of groupthink."

I don't understand this although. Classical liberals are not liberals in the way Americans understand this latter term. For example, anarcho-capitalists are considered an extreme type of classical liberals and are by no means Democrats or leftists.

Bruce is NOT a liberal or a Democrat. She is, if anything, a libertarian. The label "classical liberal" is an advertising gimmick for her show to try and differentiate herself from the crowd of right-wing talk show hosts, but the term has no real meaning beyond that. She is a right-wing talk show host.

From what I've read & been told, a "Classical Liberal" might be viewed like a 1960's free love hippy who doesn't trust big business OR big government. A modern "liberal" slash Democrat still doesn't trust big business but believes government is good & is here to help us so it needs to get bigger & more powerfull. CycloneSteve 12-31-07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by CycloneSteve (talk • contribs) 20:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with your point about the use of "although" - you're right that it doesnt make sense here, since "classical liberals" are by definition at odds with the positions you'd associate with "Democratic or liberal activists". They're not leftists.


 * As for the actual definition of what classical liberals are, however, the "1960's free love hippy" thing is very far off the mark. For a better understanding of the term, see the Wikipedia page on classical liberalism. Classical liberalism goes back to the 19th century and Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman were hardly hippies.No-itsme (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Neoconish?
MOREOVER, why is she listed as a neoconservative? Classical liberalism is about as far from neoconservatism as Left Field is from the Great Marinara Spaghetti Trench. I don't know anything about the lady -- can anyone support pro or (neo)con? 216.46.98.249 23:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

She IS a neoconservative. She is not liberal at all, she is merely using that label to gain publicity. The reality is she is VERY right wing and VERY anti-liberal.


 * THat seems a bit of nonsequitur. She is "not liberal at all", "VERY right wing" and "VERY anti-liberal" -- so therefore she's a neoconservative? How does one follow from the other?


 * Neoconservatism is a specific strand of conservatism, representing a specific set of beliefs and attitudes not as widely shared by traditional or regular conservatives. It doesnt just mean "really conservative". There are traditional conservatives who are also "VERY rightwing". I dont know anything about Tammy Bruce, that's why I came to this article, so she might well be a neoconservative, I dont know. But being "very right wing" by itself doesnt make her one. No-itsme (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing about this women and I came to this article to learn more. Sadly, this article has done little to enlighten me. Can someone include information regarding where she can be heard? What radio stations or even the general area (i.e. West Coast) where she is broadcast would be helpful.

Additionally, the statement "Her statements and writings are similar to right-wing talk show hosts like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity," is patently unhelpful. This would be similar to me stating, Tom Smith's statements and writings are similar to left-wing talk show hosts like Al Franken and Howard Stern. I find Hannity to be completely different than O'Rielly. Can someone give specific examples of her beliefs, aside from the fact that she supports George Bush? There are many people that support or oppose the President for a variety of reasons. I would say Michael Savage is a conservative, but he blasts the President constantly. On the other hand, Neal Boortz supports President Bush but is also pro-choice, for gay marriage, and advocates a more relaxed stance on marijuana.


 * I actually had the misfortune to hear her radio show come on after the Radio Factor last week while I was waiting for a class to start. I can tolerate O'Reilly, he's a doofus, but he's not a vindictive a-hole. However I'm actually surprised to hear that she is a so called "progressive feminist"...Excuse me, have you heard her radio show? It's the most textbook, liberal bashing I have ever heard in my life. Nothing but insult after insult towards Democrats. She brought up a story about how terrorists were determined to attack America again, and how McCain would be the best to handle it and Obama would just roll over, and so on blah blah. At one point, and I'm not making this up, she brought up a totally random story of a woman who threatened a dispatcher with a gunshot to the head - a complete apropos of nothing - and quipped "I wonder who she's voting for" (Implying Obama). F33bs (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Added Living Bio wiki box
As it says, I added the wiki box for bio for a living person. Whee. Bsheppard 11:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Libertarian label
I am removing the libertarian category label from her article until it's sourced and proven. She's a questionable character in general. Bsheppard 11:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What you just said: "I am going to make an edit. I am also POV." --Haizum   μολὼν λαβέ 01:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"Lifelong Democrat"
The intro to this article is misleading. It mentions "lifelong Democrat" in series with all the other labels she applies to herself, suggesting that it's one of them. Not so. The source webpage's context makes this clear. All the other labels are right in the intro sentence, in her declaration of how she defines herself; whereas the "lifelong Democrat" bit is in a subsequent biographical sentence: "A lifelong Democrat, she..." supported President Clinton until he showed himself to be a bad guy, etc. Exactly as a Reagan bio might have read, "A lifelong Democrat, Reagan endorsed Kennedy in '60, but then..." The margin of the very page links to her writings offering sharp criticism of "liberals," "the left," "Democrats," etc., and even praise for "Republicans." I think this article should be adjusted. 205.212.74.111 23:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Just because she is critical of the Democratic Party's current policy doesn't mean she's automatically a Republican.  If I were to stick feathers up my butt, would that automatically a chicken?  Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 00:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The wit of the chicken analogy is pretty much lost on me, I admit. As for the rest: I did not say she was a Republican, as far as I can tell. (In fact, I'd guess she probably isn't.) That was not the point.

First off, "not a Democrat" is not the same as "Republican." Second, I didn't even say she wasn't a Democrat. Perhaps there's evidence elsewhere to suggest that she is. But it isn't on the webpage cited. There, the context does nothing to suggest that she is, presently, a Democrat; whereas the context of the wikipedia article clearly does suggest this (the user who wrote it may have misread the source page, I'm guessing). The source page describes TB in the past tense as a "lifelong :Democrat," in a sentence specifically addressing her subsequent disillusionment. (Again, as I said previously, just imagine subbing in Reagan and Kennedy.) Not good enough to call her a Dem in the present, as far as I can see. And, that being inadequate, I then searched the page to see if there were any other indication that she's a Democrat, and found none.

I have absolutely no desire to impose litmus tests on being called a Democrat in wikipedia (or anywhere else, for that matter). Zell Miller, whatever: U.S. political parties aren't membership based, so if you call yourself a Dem there's no principled reason for anyone to take issue. And if there's someplace Tammy Bruce has identified as one in the present, let's cite it and call her one. That's all I'm saying. 205.212.74.46 07:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: Because nearly a month had passed with absolutely no further comment or objection to the above reply as to why the "lifelong Democrat" phrase should be eliminated, I went ahead and deleted it in the article. It has been reverted, quite promptly. I would have thought anyone with such a strong objection would have posted their reasons here, since the intention to delete was quite obviously stated. Please state any opposition to the edit here, as I would like to reinstate it and will if there are no objections.205.212.73.184 11:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's quite obvious from her website that she considers herself a "lifelong Democrat". From her website (http://tammybruce.com/biography.php):


 * Tammy Bruce is an openly gay, pro-choice, gun owning, pro-death penalty, voted-for-President Bush authentic feminist. A lifelong Democrat, in the 1990s she worked to help elect Senators Feinstein and Boxer, and aided the Clinton for President campaign. Before we knew he was a sexual compulsive and "did not have sexual relations with that woman."


 * Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 11:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally (but of somewhat lesser importance): I would like to edit the opening sentence "Tammy Bruce is a pro-choice lesbian feminist who" hosts a radio program, etc. I'd like it to stick to her occupation as political commentator, essayist, radio host, etc. It wouldn't matter to me, as long as it stuck to her occupation. I know we live in an era of "identity politics," and no one knows [rightfully laments] this more than conservatives, but opening a biographical article with a laundry list of identity labels still has not become the standard way to do things. (Anyway, all that information is right there a few sentences away, and is only repeated in the opener.) The first sentence should succinctly tell the reader why the subject is noteworthy; therefore, occupation and other such vital matters go there. Bruce's identity labels are quite important, and deserve to be mentioned soon, but not that soon. Even those figures for whom such matters are far more central to their public role than they are to Bruce (who, after all, comments on a wide variety of topics) don't normally have that information in the first sentence. John Wilkes Booth's race and ideology, for example, are certainly vital to the entirety of his public notability; yet that information doesn't get placed in the first sentence. The standard stuff does. I hope I've made a good initial point; I'll just try to reply to any objections that do come up.(Note: Written before above reply)205.212.73.184 11:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

To user's simultaneous talk contribution above: Yes. I saw that passage. It was the topic of everything I've written previously. Please consult these comments for why I do not agree that it is indeed "quite obvious" at all, and tell me where you feel I have made a mistake.205.212.73.184 12:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I take it that no one has any objections to removing this phrase. Please, anyone, if you do: Explain why I am wrong to do so. I understand that not everyone checks this page all the time; but I really want this discussion (or, should there be none, the edit) to proceed faster than it did before. I intend to restore the edit in a few days.205.212.73.163 17:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I object, but give me a little bit to formulate a response. I always dreaded debate class....  Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 11:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Just want to make sure you're still there.

Are you?205.212.72.122 02:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Spending all one's time on wikipedia is of course not healthy! But when I'd said I'd wanted the discussion to proceed faster than before, I did indeed mean that I'd prefer if I didn't have to wait twenty days for a talk response. It seems a bit much to go through to make an edit. Once more, I'm announcing my intention to make the change within the next five days. Once more: Could any opponent of the edit please make your argument against it known by then?67.85.178.110 07:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously a few Democrats editing this page can't stand the fact that she is a lifelong Democrat. Please, recuse yourself from this discussion. --Haizum   μολὼν λαβέ 01:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't get this discussion at all. She calls herself a "lifelong Democrat", and we say that she calls herself a "lifelong Democrat". Whether she should call herself that or not isn't Wikipedia's business to decide. In general, people should not edit politically contentious articles unless they have sources to cite for their edits. --Delirium 05:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"Lifelong Democrat" is easy to explain. First, Delirium is right, she call's herself a LLDem so it should be in her description. I myself could be called a LLRep but currently hold the Republican party in such contempt I can only think of one or two Republicans I've voted for in the last decade, but I'm not a Democrat either. CycloneSteve 31 Dec 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by CycloneSteve (talk • contribs) 20:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious that the woman is not a Democrat. She admits that she votes Republican, that she voted Republican in the last two elections, will vote Republican in the upcoming election, so on and so fourth. Additionally, the claim that she is a "lifelong Democrat" is provably false because she has stated repeatedly over the years that she CHANGED her registration to libertarian. Thirdly, she routinely identifies herself as a conservative in various audio clips and interviews I linked to on this page. Discussion is over. Anyone who continues to insist on the "lifelong democrat" label in the article is doing so for the sake of partisan rhetoric and not because of the facts.69.249.191.221 (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm so glad you made this decision. I can't wait for you to tell me when other discussions are over. Lucky for you anyone who disagrees with you is partisan. (But not you) Please feel free to label me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CycloneSteve (talk • contribs) 17:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Tammy's middle name is Kay
Mentioned on Oct 9 2008 radio show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.120.122 (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

NOW resignation
The problem here is that despite what it does or does not say in Tammy Bruce's book, the Time article says something completely different (and very different from the way the page was written). I have no objection to included TB's response/POV, but the Time article is a more objective description of the controversy..Jimintheatl (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Most would argue, as I do, that the subject's 300+ page book, published by Random House on the subject and with hundreds of cites is the relevant and accurate account of events. The Time magazine article was not objective, was filled with POV, the reporter edited her comments to suit their intentions, and took comments and events out of context. Just because something is in Time magazine doesn't make it objective or trustworthy. It's nice that you don't object to the not just the subject's recounting of events (which again have withstood the test of 12 years) but this is not a debate page or a forum in which one can attempt to smear the subject. I'm obviously not the only one who is editing this page and has a problem with your efforts to implant negative POV. You already have a history of being warned and blocked due to edit wars and malicious editing of other pages. As a representative of the subject, I'm asking you directly and specifically to stop your continuing malicious editing of this page.Obsessivelibrarian (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can support your edits with specific cites and refs, please do. The article as written when I first read it was not supported by its refs.  It has been improved since, which was my intention.Jimintheatl (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Semi protection
I have semi-protected this article for six months, due to edit-warring from various logged-out or anonymous editors, and have added the article to my watchlist. Continued edit-warring and repeated reverting without efforts to use the talk page to discuss and come to a compromise will not be looked on well. I will be keeping a close eye on things from now on. User:Obsessivelibrarian is a representative of the subject, and should therefore not be editing the article (see our conflict of interest policy; I have asked him/her to use this talk page to present their concerns. fish &amp;karate 16:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Brenda Benet
There is no reference to this matter: "In her book The Death of Right and Wrong, talk radio host Tammy Bruce writes of her personal involvement with Bixby and Benet. Benet and Bruce were romantically involved for a time, and Benet killed herself in a home she had previously shared with Bruce. Bruce had moved out two weeks prior to the suicide. On the day of Benet's suicide, Bruce thought that she would be meeting Benet for lunch. Benet waited until she heard Bruce leave before pulling the trigger and ending her life. The book Soap Opera Babylon said that Benet was actually involved with a male costar on Days of our Lives that ended right before she killed herself."

Is the Bruce Article being scrubbed? - if so, there should be a dispute of content flag.--4rousseau (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the "scrubbed" business, but has this "material" been covered by reliable 3rd party sources? If citations can be provided here, that would help determine what should go in the article and how it is written. I personally know zippo about this "incident", just commenting more from an editing perspective. --Tom (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal life section
She graduated from college. That's it? Seems a little thin? Anybody want to improve this section, ie family background, childhood, ect, ect to balance out the career section? If so, that new section could go before career. Anyways --Tom (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)