NCPA Commentaries by Pete du Pont
Governor Pete du Pont is a Board Member of the National Center for Policy Analysis. He writes a regular column for OpinionJournal.com, the online news service of The Wall Street Journal.
Pete du Pont has served as Governor of Delaware, U.S. Congressman (R-DE), and former candidate for President of the United States (1988). Gov. du Pont formerly hosted a nationally-syndicated radio commentary and appeared on several editions of the PBS Firing Line debates with William F. Buckley, Jr.
Mar 28, 2014
The Wall Street Journal: As public attention turns to the midterm elections,NCPA former Board Chairman Pete Du Pontoutlines the Left’s attacks on education, the rule of law, and the Republican Party.
Feb 27, 2014
The public could use an honest debate.
The Wall Street Journal: Global warming is back. Not actual global warming, as the decade-long trend of little to no increase in temperatures continues. But the topic of global warming is back in the news. From Secretary of State John Kerry's recent climate comments in Jakarta to the White House's 2014 "year of action" plan on carbon emissions, global warming has garnered more ink and pixels than we've seen in a while.
Jan 21, 2014
ObamaCare? Stagnant economy? Crushing debt? Foreign-policy fecklessness may trump them all.
Wall Street Journal: Of all the concerns facing the nation, NCPA board member Pete Du Pont asserts that it is our foreign policy failings that require the most attention.
Nov 25, 2013
ObamaCare wreaks havoc on health care, the economy, American freedom and Obama's presidency.
Polls show an increasing majority of Americans dislike President Obama's health-care law and disapprove of the job the president is doing.
Oct 29, 2013
How could she not?
Wall Street Journal: NCPA’s Pete Du Pont explores the possibility of a 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential run.
Sep 26, 2013
Democrats and Republicans have never had such a conflict of visions.
The Wall Street Journal: The debate about military action in Syria seems over for now, and Washington is back in campaign mode. We have a president who seems to have nothing but disdain for those who disagree with him, who forsakes no opportunity to attack congressional Republicans, and who is in full agreement with congressional Democrats that government is the key to creating jobs, prosperity and equality. We have Republicans who feel they cannot trust the president, are more dubious than ever of the government's ability to make the right decisions, and who think such decisions belong instead with individuals, families and businesses. What we don't have is much in the way of an incentive, or even a desire, to compromise.
Aug 27, 2013
The world hasn't lived up to his Pollyannaish expectations.
Wall Street Journal: President Obama’s foreign policy decisions have severely weakened America’s standing in the world, says NCPA Board Member Pete du Pont.
Jul 27, 2013
ObamaCare's chickens come home to roost.
The Wall Street Journal: The Obama administration is broadening its efforts to put a positive face on the tangled snarl of ObamaCare implementation.
Jul 01, 2013
He threatens to cut off the fuel the economy needs.
The Wall Street Journal: Not surprisingly, President Obama and Speaker John Boehner have different views on energy policy, differences brought into stark contrast by their recent statements. The president sees our nation's energy policy primarily in terms of the environment, with the economy a secondary concern. His policy is grounded in a view that government regulation and subsidies can steer us to better and cleaner energy.
May 28, 2013
He has given Americans new reason to distrust the government.
It's too early to tell if May will be remembered as marking the beginning of a failed second term for President Obama, but it is clear the atmosphere in Washington has changed. We don't yet know the full impact of new revelations about last September's attack in Benghazi, the political abuse of the Internal Revenue Service, and the Justice Department's secret surveillance of journalists, but we do know there are questions in Congress and among a suddenly energetic Washington press corps, questions likely to affect the president's agenda and legacy.
If the scandals do cause long-term damage, it will be because they point to failings of this president and his administration. The Benghazi tragedy shows the naiveté of thinking that our nation would be loved and the world safer simply because of the power of Mr. Obama's personality. The IRS abuses and Justice's snooping on the press, reminiscent of the worst of President Nixon, highlight for all the danger of larger government involvement in our lives.
Because of congressional hearings and some excellent reporting, Benghazi is finally garnering the attention it deserves. It's not often that reporters in the White House briefing room openly challenge this administration, and questions about its actions before, during and after the attack seem likely to remain in the news.
Not everyone thinks such interest is warranted. In January, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton famously fumed, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" when asked about the attack's origin. White House press secretary Jay Carney called certain questions about the administration's actions a "distraction," and Mr. Obama himself dismissed Benghazi as a "sideshow."
But, of course, it's not a distraction or a sideshow. Four Americans were killed during the attack: information officer Sean Smith, security staffers Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, and U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens. The families of these men, who died serving our nation, deserve answers.
All Americans should want to know why nothing was done to help the diplomatic staff while the attack went on, in one form or another, for 10 hours. What options were presented up the chain of command? Is it true that servicemen available to attempt a rescue were told to stand down? Why were security plans so lacking in such a volatile part of the world? Answering these questions is critical in helping to prevent future attacks.
There are political questions on Benghazi. Why were the infamous talking points revised a dozen times and scrubbed of references to al Qaeda and other information possibly unfavorable to the president's re-election effort? Why did the administration continue to tell the American people the attack was fueled by an anti-Muslim video when they knew almost from the beginning that was false? Is it true the White House, as George Will has posited, "systematically misled" us?
The IRS scandal is just as significant. There are few greater threats to our democracy than the use of the IRS, or any part of government, to harass, punish or thwart an administration's perceived political enemies. The IRS actions are particularly disconcerting given its greatly expanded role under ObamaCare.
Mr. Obama called such activities unacceptable and the Justice Department launched a criminal probe, but IRS officials have been far less than forthcoming. We know higher-ups in the IRS knew about the abuse a year ago, including Steven Miller, who subsequently became acting commissioner and has since resigned under pressure. We need to know what was done to stop the practice and who was or will be terminated, and, importantly, who will face criminal charges. Much has been written about how the demonization of conservative groups by the president and his allies in Congress may have led IRS staff to think the targeting was right. Did anyone in the administration explicitly encourage such illegalities?
The secret searches of communications of the press could have a chilling effect, but more dangerous for the Obama team is that it is the press whose ox was gored in this scandal, perhaps rousing them from their five-year hibernation and focusing their attention not just on Benghazi and the IRS, but also on Fast and Furious, Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius's alleged strong-arming of businesses she regulates, and other possible legal or ethical violations by members of the administration.
Will all this lead to impeachment, as some have speculated recently? Probably not, and certainly not now. But not being guilty of an impeachable offense is a low hurdle for a president focused on his legacy. For a man who came to office with the goal of expanding the role of government to better our lives, it would be quite a comedown to leave office with the main accomplishment of increasing the nation's distrust of government