Talk:Dana Perino

message: is this a fact?! she kinda looks older...  
i'ma guy who was born in 1970-ies and she looks at least a decade older than me—Preceding unsigned comment added by Topk (talk • contribs) 11:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  born in 1972?! 

message: So why is not knowing the specifics of the Cuban Missile Crisis a controversy? I personally don't find it the least bit controversial, does anyone else? SpudHawg948 (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC
:from the Cuban Missile Crisis: "The crisis ranks with the Berlin Blockade as one of the major confrontations of the Cold War, and is generally regarded, along with the Able Archer 83 incident in 1983, as the moment in which the Cold War came closest to a nuclear war."B. Gregory Marfleet, ‘The Operational Code of John F. Kennedy During the Cuban Missile Crisis: A Comparison of Public and Private Rhetoric’, Political Psychology, 21/3, p 545. Pierre Salinger, JFK's press secretary during the CMC, served as a secret intermediary to "back channel talks" that helped resolve the crisis. Reflecting back on that crisis, he said, "If (Soviet Premier Nikita) Kruschev had not pulled out the missiles, we were going to send in troops and bomb Cuba. The Soviet Union would have immediately bombed us." 
:Kinda what you want the White House Press Secretary to not only know about, but to have studied in detail -  it is a (perhaps the) prime example of just how important a role the president's communications officers can play. Wormcast (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies 

message: "The President has been looking for Osama Bin Laden since September 12th.”  How is that a gaffe?  It is fairly obvious that she means Bush has been looking for him since the September 11th attacks.  Scottgerard (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mike Kinsley famously defined a gaffe in Washington as "an accidental, inadvertent moment of truth-telling." In this case, she inadvertently called attention to what the Bush administration has spend quite a bit of effort denying; namely, claims by former counterterrorism officer Richard Clark that the Bush Admin deprioritized the effort to catch Bin Laden that had been in place under the Clinton Admin, and only started it up again in earnest after the 911 disaster --Wormcast (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaffes? 

message: As a Citizen of this great Land, I would so enjoy hearing that Dana Perino would run for President or Vice President.  She is clear-minded, well spoken and so intelligent.    68.38.35.243 (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia talk pages are for the discussion of improvements to the article, please. Lots42 (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  future plans 

message: The Frank Rich reply to Perino...sounds more like it belongs in the Rich page and not here. Lots42 (talk) 11:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? The comment was about Perino, properly attributed and sourced to comply with WP:NPOV. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 20:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frank Rich 

message: http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3373:committee-report-white-house-engaged-in-systematic-effort-to-manipulate-climate-change-science-&catid=44:legislation
This information was previously included in the article on Dana Perino. She was the communications advisor to the Council on Environmental Quality when the panel found evidence of White House censorship of government scientists on the subject of Climate Change. Including the notorious editing of CDC Cheif Gerberding's study on the health hazards of climate change to reflect only Health Benefits in her sworn congressional testimony. I've linked to the findings of the committee which detail the abuses. You may also find sourcing in the Testimoney of Nasa Scientists such as James Hansen or in his book, Censoring Science. It is clear as communications advisor, she was responsible for press content from this organization and released edited statements on science reflecting a White House Policy of censorship involving Climate Change. To not include this in the article, is to remove several years of her White House Tenure and the national implications of her service. This report is included in the wiki entry on the CEQ and should be linked here. 
Finding: The White House Censored Climate Change Scientists
The White House exerted unusual control over the public statements of federal scientists on climate change issues. It was standard practice for media requests to speak with federal scientists on climate change matters to be sent to CEQ for White House approval. By controlling which government scientists could respond to media inquiries, the White House suppressed dissemination of scientific views that could conflict with Administration policies. The White House also edited congressional testimony regarding the science of climate change.
Former CEQ Chief of Staff Philip Cooney told the Committee: “Our communications people would render a view as to whether someone should give an interview or not and who it should be.” According to Kent Laborde, a career public affairs officer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, media requests related to climate change issues were handled differently from other requests because “I would have to route media inquires through CEQ.” This practice was particularly evident after Hurricane Katrina. Mr. Laborde was asked, “Did the White House and the Department of Commerce not want scientists who believed that climate change was increasing hurricane activity talking with the press?” He responded: “There was a consistent approach that might have indicated that.”
White House officials and agency political appointees also altered congressional testimony regarding the science of climate change. The changes to the recent climate change testimony of Dr. Julie Gerberding, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have received considerable attention. A year earlier, when Dr. Thomas Karl, the Director of National Climatic Data Center, appeared before the House Oversight Committee, his testimony was also heavily edited by both White House officials and political appointees at the Commerce Department. He was not allowed to say in his written testimony that “modern climate change is dominated by human influences,” that “we are venturing into the unknown territory with changes in climate,” or that “it is very likely (>95 percent probability) that humans are largely responsible for many of the observed changes in climate.” His assertion that global warming “is playing” a role in increased hurricane intensity became “may play.”
The White House Extensively Edited Climate Change Reports
There was a systematic White House effort to minimize the significance of climate change by editing climate change reports. CEQ Chief of Staff Phil Cooney and other CEQ officials made at least 294 edits to the Administration’s Strategic Plan of the Climate Change Science Program to exaggerate or emphasize scientific uncertainties or to deemphasize or diminish the importance of the human role in global warming.
The White House insisted on edits to EPA’s draft Report on the Environment that were so extreme that the EPA Administrator opted to eliminate the climate change section of the report. One such edit was the inclusion of a reference to a discredited, industry-funded paper. In a memo to the Vice President’s office, Mr. Cooney explained: “We plan to begin to refer to this study in Administration communications on the science of global climate change” because it “contradicts a dogmatic view held by many in the climate science community that the past century was the warmest in the past millennium and signals of human induced ‘global warming.’”
In the case of EPA’s Air Trends Report, CEQ went beyond editing and simply vetoed the entire climate change section of the report.
Other White House Actions
The White House played a major role in crafting the August 2003 EPA legal opinion disavowing authority to regulate greenhouse gases. CEQ Chairman James Connaughton personally edited the draft legal opinion. When an EPA draft quoted the National Academy of Science conclusion that “the changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities,” CEQ objected because “the above quotes are unnecessary and extremely harmful to the legal case being made.” The first line of another internal CEQ document transmitting comments on the draft EPA legal opinion reads: “Vulnerability: science.” The final opinion incorporating the White House edits was rejected by the Supreme Court in April 2007 in Massachusetts v. EPA.
The White House also edited a 2002 op-ed by EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman to ensure that it followed the White House line on climate change. Despite objections from EPA, CEQ insisted on repeating an unsupported assertion that millions of American jobs would be lost if the Kyoto Protocol were ratified.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobnozal2 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to cut and paste. The source provided makes no mention of Perino or her involvement with this issue. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 23:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I added in the source to the report plus I added in (from your sources) the information about Perino killing negative info about hydrogen fuel cells. However, I didn't include your statement:and, during her tenure, had in fact edited Congressional testimony on the subject of the health hazards of climate change, and climate change's effect on hurricanes since I don't see it in any of the sources you provided. If you have Bowen's book, then please post the quotation here along with page number. If you don't, then post a link to a source that verifies that statement. Thanks! (BTW, type four tildes at the end of your post ~~~~ (the squiggle on the top left of the keyboard) to "sign" your posts.) ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 05:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  House Commitee on Oversight and Governmental Reform, Report, Council on Environmental Quality 

message: has twice thrice added to the lead of the article:In 2010, she started teaching a class in political communications part-time at George Washington University's Graduate School of Political Management. with the edit summary:Once again, what matters is any positions she CURRENTLY holds. I believe her professorship merits being in the "lead". Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Begala as an example.) First off, she doesn't hold a "professorship" -- the reference provided doesn't support that. The primary issue here is: Where should the detailed text be included. I argue putting it in the "Post-Bush administration career" section, while 24.110.174.98 argues it should be in the lead but not in the body of the text.The guideline I will be using is WP:LEAD, part of the Wikipedia manual of style. In a nutshell:The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. 24.110.174.98's argues the standard should be "any positions she CURRENTLY holds" however this isn't part of the guideline. The lead describes the "important aspects" of the text article -- in other words, whatever is in the lead summarizes the body of the article. Perino's lead is deficient since it doesn't mention her work at Fox News -- clearly the most important current role. I will remedy that. The information relating to "positions she CURRENTLY holds" already has a place in the article: "Post-Bush administration career". The lead should encapsulate the most important aspect of her current career: Press Secretary and a Fox News commentator. Teaching one class on a part time basis is not lead-worthy. Nor would her work at KTSC, University of Illinois at Springfield, Burson-Marsteller nor Broadcasting Board of Governors nor for Scott McInnis nor Karl Rove, etc. You compare her part-time, one class gig to Beluga's full-time professorship. Beluga's article is faulty because it doesn't detail (nor even provide a reference for) that information in the body of the article. Just because another page is deficient, doesn't justify using it here. I could easily find tens of other pages that fit within the guidelines. John Ashcroft holds a similar one-class teaching gig at Regent University#Faculty which doesn't even rise to the level of inclusion on his page. Perino's biography is similarly meaty — this one-off teaching class doesn't rise to the same level as Press Secretary and commentator. The issue here is applying Wikipedia guidelines to this particular page regardless how it isn't being applied to other pages.I will add in the Fox News job to the lead. Do you believe the article would be stronger if the lead included:She currently is a commentator for Fox News and, part-time, works for a public relations firm, serves on the Broadcasting Board of Governors and teaches a class on communications. But if you'd like, we could get a third opinion. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 17:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should her one-class teaching job  be included in the lead? 

message: In Post-Bush Administration career, it says:
"Since leaving the White House, Perino became a political commentator on Fox News, where some of her statements have been criticized."  Really?  What is that supposed to mean?  Is there __ANYONE__ at Fox New where this is not true?  Instead of "where some of her statements have been criticized.", we could put, "where she is just a joy to be around." The comment is hardly a neutral comment that Wikipedia aspires to.  The clause should be removed completely.  If anything is put in its place, it should (at least) pretend to have useful content. User:wavieira 30 Aug 2011  —Preceding undated comment added 09:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-Bush Administration Career 

message: Article states: "In 2015, she claimed that climate scientists had fabricated temperature data and that climate science was "fraud science." Politifact rated her claim as "pants on fire."
Source is provided and it takes less than a minute to discover that she did not make this claim; her claim (copying the quote directly from the source) was: "Because yesterday, it was reported that the temperature readings have been fabricated and it's all blowing up in their faces."
Her claim was that it was reported, Politifact admits it was unable to determine which report she was citing before continuing on several pages of a lot on things that weren't about her claim and decided her "pants were on fire". If you want to argue the reality of climate change that's one thing, but it is undetermined as to what report if any she cited thereby invalidating this whole point other than a simple smear. --138.163.0.39 (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-Bush Administration Career - Climate Report 

message: Is that confirmed somewhere? I read that she was hired by Andy Card...http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/4/29/210953.shtml  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.141.203.57 (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hired by Scott McClellan 

message: Why is this violation?  I read the BLP policy and do not see how anything was violated.  This has caused quite the stir with people attacking her on Twitter, blogs ,etc, calling her a racist, etc., and her own co-hosts called her rapping terrible. She has taken all the criticism in good humor, except for being called a racist, which she is not. I included one critics opinion for balance and softened it by including "critics were not kind." Shouldn't this rapping incident have some mention here as it is being mentioned everywhere else for many days now.  Also, tonight on Red Eye w/Greg Gutfeld, Dana blamed her two co-workers at Fox, Greg Gutfeld and Bill Schulz, for talking her into doing this rap.  I like her and was not trying to damage her image, so semi-protecting the article is over-the-top (no one was edit warring) and the administrator accusing me of vandalism (with rvv.) is very offensive to me.(add--63.3.5.132 (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a specific question? I assume you're referring to this edit of yours. Seems like an issue of balance and tone considering this was a very insignificant event, really only a stunt gag that generated very little national coverage. Really only one off comments and not significant in depth coverage for a "rap song". Because it is mostly volunteers monitoring the help template, and I am not an admin, you should appeal the semi-protection via the appropriate channels. Even if I agreed with your assessment, which I don't, there's nothing I could do about it. See WP:PROTECT. Mkdwtalk 07:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My question was clear. I did not vandalize the article and the article is now protected.  I only added the above material in quotations. I did not remove any material. If you believe the problem is the tone and balance of the critics words, then remove them, but leave the rest because it is not vandalism as the administrator put in his edit comments when he removed all the above.--63.3.5.132 (talk) 08:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Her rapping on The Five removed for violation of BLP issues and article protected.  Really!? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Dana Perino. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080327014629/http://www.rockymountainnews.com:80/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5455331,00.html to http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5455331,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Success! --1990'sguy (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Dana Perino. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081216033325/http://www.nytimes.com:80/2008/12/15/world/middleeast/15prexy.html?th&emc=th to http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/15/world/middleeast/15prexy.html?th&emc=th
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Bad archive URL. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Dana Perino. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716133817/http://www.niaf.org/news/index.asp?id=561 to http://www.niaf.org/news/index.asp?id=561
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715103210/http://www.politicswest.com/7672/colorado_native_takes_over_tony_snow to http://www.politicswest.com/7672/colorado_native_takes_over_tony_snow
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101205020028/http://oversight.house.gov/images/stories/documents/20071210101633.pdf to http://oversight.house.gov/images/stories/documents/20071210101633.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100523015550/http://www.whorunsgov.com:80/Profiles/Dana_M._Perino to http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Dana_M._Perino
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Dana Perino. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120609135344/http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/4/29/210953.shtml to http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/4/29/210953.shtml
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0%2C1299%2CDRMN_15_5455331%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081215054954/http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081214/bush_iraqvisit_081214/20081214?hub=TopStories to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081214/bush_iraqvisit_081214/20081214?hub=TopStories
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Dana_M._Perino
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The democrats in AZ have abandoned her, embarrassed her, and are leading an effort to challenge her in the primary. She should change her party to Republican immediately. That would result in change in majority in the Senate. I love it. Everything would change. 158.140.46.27 (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re Senator Sinema 

message: Does Dana wear a wig or fall on her hair. 2601:243:281:8B40:FD2C:D662:530B:1123 (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Dana wear a fall on her head 

message: I just seen a video of  the early 1910's. When the democrats controlled I think it was Virginia. It was that Allen family trying to root control of the state. But they did horrific crime to the whole community. Could you please fact check this? Thank you 2601:805:8282:8140:D9DB:7C4B:E758:5D52 (talk) 01:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics as usual 

message: Instead of cancelled debt why not just make affordable to pay back. When loan payments are more than your mortgage and car payment combined then paying back is hard on individuals. Lower the payments according that persons earnings and not what the government wants. 
Thanks
Luis Montano 2600:1004:B016:19B:CC9:E8C4:E6B1:D0BF (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Student loan payback 

message: I'm so frustrated by my republican party House and senate. One - they have a chance to improve the condition at the border, but if they can't get everything they want they whine and don't want to play. Second - Many either didn't read the bill or are stuck on old rumors.  They are either lying or need remedial reading help to understand.  I'm sick of our whiney so nothing congress.  We need a massive replacement of ask if them. 2601:154:C002:4D90:A155:A87D:4033:6F19 (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Border Bill