This judgment is way over the top and unfortunately such extreme statements help discredit conservatives just as much as the nonsense written in NYTimes editorials discredits progressives. Obama is incompetent, that much is clear. But I think Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates have done their jobs very capably. Defence and foreign policy are arguably among the most important positions. The problem is that Obama is completely inexperienced and to make matters worse, he is quite ideological and supremely confident. Those three make for a deadly and very heady cocktail. The healthcare law was hardly handled in an inept fashion - and that precisely was the problem! It was passed shrewdly and perniciously despite widespread opposition.

Lets be consistent here. The same applies for George W Bush. Genuinely good and well intentioned person, but completely inept for the job. I remember thinking in 2008 of how terrible it was that in a time of such an economic and security (two wars, one of which was completely stupid and unnecessary) crisis, the greatest most powerful nation in the world could not find even two capable and experienced men to lead it.

Whether you agree with the progressive agenda or not (I personally find most of their ideas either nonsensical or outright dangerous, well intentioned though they may be), the tactics being used here are not only entirely legal but also completely valid. Boycotting companies whose policies you don't agree with is a very effective democratic way of influencing them. Yes, it is a somewhat not ideal to try and avoid an open discussion, but as long as you are not threatening to use/using violent force, I am completely in support of such tactics. The unfortunate part is that the progressives have managed to "herd" a large percentage of minorities into doing their bidding without thinking for themselves.

This column by Hanson is rather disappointing, considering his superb knowledge and expertise on history which I have always admired. Administrations have been felled by serious scandals but the problem with his argument is that as bruising each of the examples he gives of Obama's mistakes are, none are anywhere as scandalous as Watergate or Lewinsky. It may well be that a number of such missteps cumulatively add up to vanquish Obama but it is much more likely that he will be defeated by a bad economy that he did not do enough to improve. Obama's biggest blunder was spending most of 2009-10 on the highly unpopular healthcare law when the first order should have been the bad economy. Sheer incompetence, not scandal, will vanquish him.

The title is not misleading if taken in the pure economic sense. I get your point. Imagine if the government decreed that all citizens were to dig a hole ten feet deep and then simply fill it up after that, there would be little "cost" in terms of a government department, but a significant cost to the citizenry in terms of productivity and GDP. Even with people who do not have a paid job for a living, if they spent X million hours collectively filing tax returns, that is an opportunity cost to do other things that would either be more productive or would at least be of value in terms of pleasure. This tax code will NEVER be simplified. Too many interest groups. A pipe dream - would even Republicans dare take on say homeowners?