Objective review of Republican candidates for President

[Karl Henning]

One non-myth about Paul: He's unelectable.

I scare suspected the truth of this until . . .

He'd [...] cut every dime of foreign aid, halt overseas military action and bring home all the troops. He'd return to the gold standard and abolish the Federal Reserve.

[jowcol]

(note-- the following is my opinion-- feel free to disagree.  )

As an Independent who would actually like a candidate to vote for (vs vote against), I must admit that I wish that someone would challenge Obama.  The current circus on the GOP side is tending to make   Obama look better, and won't force him to improve his game.    And for entertainment value, I'd just assume see the Democrats air their own brand of silliness more conspicuously. 


I read an interesting article a while back about how the combination of the the electoral college and gerrymandering have created the scenario where the primary process is driven to select the people that most resonate with the base-- which is why all of this stuff with "pledges", "purity" etc have made it hard for any pragmatic leader type to come to the forefront. assuming one exists.   The current anti-govt (unless it's defense, which is part of the govt as far as I'm concerned), anti-tax, anti-compromise litmus test is sending most of the reasonable candidates scurrying for cover.  This type of fervor (on the left or right), gets people like Christine O'Donnell nominated over a much more electable candidate for the real election.  Strangely enough, if gerrymandering where not so pervasive, the primary process would likely better favor more electable candidates.   


It's a sad state of affairs when a completely transparent, soulless political creature like Romney ,who has no trouble adopting the flavor of the hour,  is coming across as the most reasonable choice from that side of the aisle.    And that I'd have to pick between him, or another for years of someone who is good at making speeches, but has not shown much of an ability to steer congress and manage those in his party.

Oh well , the perennial  truth behind all elections is that only the comedians can be assured of coming out ahead every time.


It's just a shame that Lyndon Larouche is no longer running.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche His group was much like a cult, and since he's based in my county, they were more aggressive than moonies.   I used to have a lot of fun playing with their minds.   Of course, with the current playing field, Lyndon might win, and next thing you know,  Navy Seals are forceably extradicting the Queen of England on drug trafficking charges.

[drogulus]

(note-- the following is my opinion-- feel free to disagree.  )

As an Independent who would actually like a candidate to vote for (vs vote against), I must admit that I wish that someone would challenge Obama.  The current circus on the GOP side is tending to make   Obama look better, and won't force him to improve his game.    And for entertainment value, I'd just assume see the Democrats air their own brand of silliness more conspicuously. 

      Both parties are not equally silly. The Democrats are really trying to improve the economy, health care and come to an agreement on the budget. Furthermore, the measures they have taken have helped, though not enough. They can be criticized for being ineffective in finding a way to force Republicans to deal with problems. In contrast the Republican are following a strategy that makes every decision into a crisis for which they hope Obama will be blamed. For a good part of the electorate this has worked. But the cost to the country has been high. It means that every possible compromise position based on positions Republicans have supported in the past has been blocked. Republicans now routinely vote against their own proposals. In fact Republican positions are not designed to be implemented, they are designed to prevent even the slight possibility that anything helpful will be implemented until Obama is gone.

    He'd cut every dime of foreign aid.....

    Both of them?

    Things have come to a bad pass if Ron Paul starts to look reasonable. The man is an ignoramus.

[jowcol]

      Both parties are not equally silly. The Democrats are really trying to improve the economy, health care and come to an agreement on the budget.

We may need to choose not to see eye to eye on that.  I think the Republicans have been worse in the last two years, but the Democratic Congress was equally eager to claim a mandate from the people they didn't have in 2008. And the democrats were unable to pass a budget when they were in power-- this could have delayed the budget crisis for a year, correct?

I'm unhappy about Obama stepping back from the milddle path and falling behind the "class warfare" tactics.  , hiding  issues such as the fact the the deductions for lear jets, etc, are insignificant compared to the mortage deduction which benefits more of the middle class. 


I work in the health IT industry, and I'm one of the few people I know  with an opinion on the Affordable Care Act that has ACTUALLY READ THE DAMN THING IN ITS ENTIRETY.  (I got paid to do it-- in case you are wondering...)  My take in a nutshell:

For the Republican Side: 
Given their support by special interests on the provider, payer side, I haven't seen many of them them begin to provide a creditable alternative, or be able to take it far.  (Although some of what Michael Enzi has suggested is a decent start). Still, I think the special interests that own them will never allow them to consider getting rid of the fee for service model, and the gouging  in the payment process that has the counter-intuitive result of charging poor people more, and then making the rest of us eat the different.

Demonizing advanced directive counseling as "death panels" was one of the most absurd lies every propagated.  Even Palin later denied she meant the term literally.

I don't think pushing everything to the states is the answer.  I've worked with too many state health departments. And asking 50 different organizations to come up with their own way to meed a mandate is less likely to be efficient the sharing the effort.  Not saying that a federal approach is always better.

For the Democratic side--

Too much was bundled in a single bill that didn't need to be.  Administrative reform had few opponents and could have sailed through much faster if not tied to the larger mass.

Many good ideas, like Accountability Care Organizations, were undeveloped, since the push was to pass everything at once.   This was a great idea to fix the fundamental problems in incentiviizations in health care, but lacked the depth to really make it happen. 

There was not funding analysis for major elements like CLASS, which addressed a need, but did not have a prayer of  being funded.  Sibelius announced that it was being canceled a few months back.  Not due to Republican opposition so much as there was simply not financial basis to maintain it.

The timelines  for a lot of the programs spun off form it  and the HITECH act are overly ambitious, despite with the fact that I support many of them, and feel they are    A lot of providers will be eligible for incentive payments for meeting criteria that have been ludicrously softened since the govt was not able to put the necessary mechanisms in place.   By doing too many things too quickly, in practice, we are watching them fail.

I haven't even addressed the issues of mandated coverage and preexisting conditions.  Frankly, They needed to be addressed together, but I'm not sure if this was the time.  That became a major lightning rod, and the Democrats did a hideous job of managing the message.  And it was only ONE cause of spiraling health costs.  My take was that Obama was strangely passive and let Pelosi and Reid throw the whole kitchen sink at the problem.  The result will be killing many good ideas because of not setting an effective scope, message, and ability to execute.  And it scares me more since the pendulum swing in teh other direction is only going to worsen the whole situation.


Sorry-- it's the caffeine talking, and the fact I'm trying to make that health bill work-- as are many others.   My personal take is that is Obama is a gifted speaker and debator, and can say just the right thing.  But I'd give him a poor grade on putting ideas into action.  He's been most decisive, oddly enough, in an almost "hawkish" foreign policy  if you look at the increase in drone strikes, reluctance to shut down Guantanamo, and his willingness to okay the raid the killed Bin Laden.  I would have expected him to resist the Intel and DoD community more.

This is my take.  FWIW-- I've tended to vote democrat more often than not.  But I usually vote against the person who seems the most crazy or owned by special interests.   One could say the Republicans are most obstructionist now, but the Democrats have been pretty fond of the Fillibuster in the Bush years.  I don't see where either side is without blemish. 

The fact that we are seeing this in terms of dogma and sides, and not in terms of issues is the heart of the problem.

Once again- my own opinion.  You are all free to disagree, rebut, and savage as you wish.

[drogulus]

     I think Bush got more cooperation from Democrats, and there was willingness to compromise. The most important difference is that Democrats didn't feel that jeopardizing the country by making problems worse was a legitimate strategy to combat the Bush agenda. IOW the Dems penalized themselves by not adopting a nihilistic attitude. This sort of asymmetry is typical of the last few years. One side cares about what happens and is duty bound to prevent disaster while the other side is willing to do anything. Democrats must seek accommodation while Republicans won't. This is Obamas dilemma, because he needs to electorate to understand what's happening, while the Repubs are betting that people stupid enough to entertain Gingrich, Bachman or Perry as candidates won't see anything. The Repubs are making the easy bet: If you dumb down politics and drive down turnout, the biggest bullshitter wins.

[ibanezmonster]

I'm fairly sure the Obama team would prefer running against Gingrich.

Pretty sad when a failure of a president has actually has a good chance against the competition.

[drogulus]

Pretty sad when a failure of a president has actually has a good chance against the competition.

     Perhaps in time you'll see that Obama has accomplished a great deal. The cloud of the Great Recession has obscured this for now, though not entirely.

[drogulus]

          

     

[Lethevich]

To an initially-enthused outsider, Obama just looks like a man-the-tiller guy like Bush (excluding a lot of the random war shit) without anything huge being done. Whether that's because the country has no money or not, I don't know.

[drogulus]

     OTOH maybe I'm too pessimistic. Maybe the majority is not fooled by the "equally to blame" meme.


     From The New Republic:

     Poll: It Isn't Both Sides' Fault

   
A new poll from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press finds that public dissatisfaction with Congress has reached record levels, with 67 percent saying they want to throw most of the bums out (up from 49 percent in 2006) and 33 percent saying they want to throw their own bum out (up from 28 percent in 2006). Fifty percent say the current Congress has achieved less than other recent Congresses.

But the really interesting finding is that the public does not accept the "objective" message spoon-fed by the press that both sides are equally at fault. Instead, it (accurately) assigns most of the blame to the Republican party. Forty percent say Republican leaders are more to blame, as against a mere 23 percent who say Democratic leaders are more to blame. A larger proportion blames the GOP than blame both parties (32 percent). And among independents, 38 percent say Republicans are more to blame, against 15 percent who say Democrats are. So much for the hack story line that partisanship and political games-playing is paralyzing Washington. Partisanship and political games-playing by Republicans is paralyzing Washington.

Which party, Pew asked, is more extreme in its positions? Fifty-three percent say Republicans, against 33 percent who finger Democrats. (Only 1 percent says that neither side is more extreme.)

Which side is more willing to work with the other? Fifty-one percent say it's the Democrats, against 25 percent who say Republicans.

Which side can better manage the government? Forty-one percent say the Democrats against 35 percent who say the Republicans.

Which side is more honest and ethical? Forty-five percent say the Democrats, against 28 percent who say the Republicans.

Even Republicans are apparently fed up with Republicans in Congress. A higher proportion of Republicans (70 percent) than Democrats (60 percent) want to throw most of the bums out, even though Republicans have the House majority right now. A slightly higher proportion of Republicans (28 percent) than Democrats (25 percent) want to throw their own bum out. Only 49 percent of Republicans approve of the job the Republican congressional leadership is doing, against 60 percent of Democrats who approve of the job the Democratic congressional leadership is doing.

I hope the "objective" press reports these findings accurately, and doesn't bend itself into a pretzel trying to portray them as representing mere generalized disgust with partisan bickering in Washington.

     If this is true the Republican strategy will backfire and Obama will be reelected. This may be the positive side of his cerebral, somewhat detached presentation that so infuriates his partisans. He's obviously trying to put out the fire, not burn down the house.

[ibanezmonster]

     Perhaps in time you'll see that Obama has accomplished a great deal. The cloud of the Great Recession has obscured this for now, though not entirely.

Well, if the next couple of months keep getting better like they have been recently, I'll excuse him. That means when the next recession (the new one which will be caused by Europe) hits soon, the so-called "unemployment rate" might only go up to maybe 10%, rather than 12 or 13% (or some number like that- just estimating).

[kishnevi]

     I think Bush got more cooperation from Democrats, and there was willingness to compromise. The most important difference is that Democrats didn't feel that jeopardizing the country by making problems worse was a legitimate strategy to combat the Bush agenda. IOW the Dems penalized themselves by not adopting a nihilistic attitude. This sort of asymmetry is typical of the last few years. One side cares about what happens and is duty bound to prevent disaster while the other side is willing to do anything. Democrats must seek accommodation while Republicans won't. This is Obamas dilemma, because he needs to electorate to understand what's happening, while the Repubs are betting that people stupid enough to entertain Gingrich, Bachman or Perry as candidates won't see anything. The Repubs are making the easy bet: If you dumb down politics and drive down turnout, the biggest bullshitter wins.

I think you're overlooking one aspect--that the Republican electorate honestly thinks that Obama's policies, if implemented, would be an actual disaster, and that obstructing his agenda is the best of way keeping disaster at bay.    The politicians take advantage of this; the charge of nihilism applies to them.

[Karl Henning]

We may need to choose not to see eye to eye on that.  I think the Republicans have been worse in the last two years, but the Democratic Congress was equally eager to claim a mandate from the people they didn't have in 2008. And the democrats were unable to pass a budget when they were in power-- this could have delayed the budget crisis for a year, correct?

I agree that the Democratic House (at the least) were roughly equal but opposite doofuses, and I am apt to think that Obama's missed opportunities were partly a function of his not managing discipline.

As someone who largely gives Obama some slack, I entirely see your point about wishing there were enough of an opposition (presidential campaign -wise) to incite him to improve his game.

[jowcol]

     OTOH maybe I'm too pessimistic. Maybe the majority is not fooled by the "equally to blame" meme.


     From The New Republic:

     Poll: It Isn't Both Sides' Fault

   
A new poll from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press finds that public dissatisfaction with Congress has reached record levels, with 67 percent saying they want to throw most of the bums out (up from 49 percent in 2006) and 33 percent saying they want to throw their own bum out (up from 28 percent in 2006). Fifty percent say the current Congress has achieved less than other recent Congresses.

But the really interesting finding is that the public does not accept the "objective" message spoon-fed by the press that both sides are equally at fault. Instead, it (accurately) assigns most of the blame to the Republican party. Forty percent say Republican leaders are more to blame, as against a mere 23 percent who say Democratic leaders are more to blame. A larger proportion blames the GOP than blame both parties (32 percent). And among independents, 38 percent say Republicans are more to blame, against 15 percent who say Democrats are. So much for the hack story line that partisanship and political games-playing is paralyzing Washington. Partisanship and political games-playing by Republicans is paralyzing Washington.

Which party, Pew asked, is more extreme in its positions? Fifty-three percent say Republicans, against 33 percent who finger Democrats. (Only 1 percent says that neither side is more extreme.)

Which side is more willing to work with the other? Fifty-one percent say it's the Democrats, against 25 percent who say Republicans.

Which side can better manage the government? Forty-one percent say the Democrats against 35 percent who say the Republicans.

Which side is more honest and ethical? Forty-five percent say the Democrats, against 28 percent who say the Republicans.

Even Republicans are apparently fed up with Republicans in Congress. A higher proportion of Republicans (70 percent) than Democrats (60 percent) want to throw most of the bums out, even though Republicans have the House majority right now. A slightly higher proportion of Republicans (28 percent) than Democrats (25 percent) want to throw their own bum out. Only 49 percent of Republicans approve of the job the Republican congressional leadership is doing, against 60 percent of Democrats who approve of the job the Democratic congressional leadership is doing.

I hope the "objective" press reports these findings accurately, and doesn't bend itself into a pretzel trying to portray them as representing mere generalized disgust with partisan bickering in Washington.

     If this is true the Republican strategy will backfire and Obama will be reelected. This may be the positive side of his cerebral, somewhat detached presentation that so infuriates his partisans. He's obviously trying to put out the fire, not burn down the house.

A:  I like the "obscured by clouds" reference in the previous post.

B:  Another way to look at a notion of being "equally to blame" is that, to me anyway, both parties are unbelievably cynical in their refusal to admit that complex problems are, indeed, complex, and require sacrifice across the board.  And that a simple buzz word or passed by that is not monitored in execution is not enough.    I see both parties  as amoral corporations that exist to sell the product and protect their cash flow and market share.  Between bogus ideologies and a blind eye to the particular special interest groups that provide funding, actual problem solution is not really an interest.

Matt Miller had an excellent editorial in the Washington Post a while back on why the notion of a third party is more necessary than ever.  His thesis is that, in a sort of "evolution", the existing parties have adapted to get candidates elected, not to solve problems.   When I read this, I honestly feel that someone has been able to articulate what I've been feeling for the last couple of decades.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-we-need-a-third-party/2011/09/25/gIQALQLGxK_story.html

This explains why, for example, discussions of unemployment have avoided things like the skills gap, globalization and international outsourcing of jobs (a major factor in why we haven't recovered as quickly from the meltdown) and other factors.  Unfortunately, these issues are not addressed as publicly because of either concern for showing bad in the polls or offending a major contributor.    I'll admit I'm terrified of the currently aired Republican theories on the economy, since they don't seem to have much of a historical basis. (Taxes at the lowest in 50 years-- where's the jobs?)  We have also paid the price for business deregulation in the past (the Reagan S&L bailout that cost more then the Marshall plan, the real estate bubble, etc.)  But I've also seen eagerness in passing bills for funding (aka, the Affordable Care Act), where the execution is lame. It would be better to start something limited an manage it to completion than start a lot of things half assed because they match a  buzz word, and then watch them fade when the next administration takes over.  Which is my major grief on the Democrat side.  The ACA needs more messaging, care and feeding to work.  Instead, a lot of $$ will be wasted, and the current administration is letting it happen.    Is wasting money and failing to pu6  the right thing into action better than not doing it at all?

I'm more interested in results.  The responsibility of the Executive branch is to ensure that passed legislation is put successfully  into action.  Simply passing a bill with the best intentions doesn't rate much in my book.   


Final note: at the moment, the way things look, I'll be likely to pull the same levers you do in the voting booth in 2012.  But it's only because I'm looking for the lessor of two evils between a Coke and a Pepsi-- two corporations that just want to perpetuate the market as long as they have a chance to increase share.

[Karl Henning]

How does Gingrich say things that aren't true with such conviction? "Newt believes what is good for Newt is the truth," King says. And that is perhaps the scariest part of all.

RTWT here.

[jowcol]

RTWT here.

You've quoted Rubin a couple of times-- I'm glad the post includes her for balance.  I also enjoy Charles Krauthammer's column.  I don't always agree, but most of his positions are well reasoned, and he's always worth considering. 

As far as issues with the truth-- most politicians, IMO, have a similar blind spot.
http://www.youtube.com/v/KiIP_KDQmXs#t=7s

Personally, I don't care about a politician's private life.  i would have had no problems with him invoking the 5th Amendment.  I wouldn't have cared if he preferred the company of goats.  But if he needed to stand on the record,  he could have told the truth....

[drogulus]

I think you're overlooking one aspect--that the Republican electorate honestly thinks that Obama's policies, if implemented, would be an actual disaster, and that obstructing his agenda is the best of way keeping disaster at bay.    The politicians take advantage of this; the charge of nihilism applies to them.

     I don't agree that I'm overlooking this aspect. We have obstruction now, and disaster looms now along with the obstruction, and the poll shows that many people are not fooled by the notion that Obama caused the difficulties the Repubs are creating for him. They have pursued a total war strategy. To bring down Obama they had to bring down the country. Now they are reaping a bitter harvest. They bet the electorate would be too addled by fear and hatred to notice what they did. But an odd thing has happened. Ordinarily in dire circumstances people tend to blame whoever is charge for the crisis. If the poll is accurate, though, Repubs are getting an unusually large portion of it.

     Perhaps people remember that Bush launched a vast tax cut that created almost no jobs while punching a hole in the budget that has come back to threaten us in exactly the way the opponents said it would (remember, the tax cut was "temporary" because it violated budget rules then in place to prevent the huge deficit that, uh, wasn't prevented).

     The Repubs hate government so much they can't figure out what to do with it when they are in charge other than make it worse (well, that's something). For 30 years they have been acting on a theory that lowering taxes on the top incomes will bring prosperity that more than offsets the lost revenue. Economists say it hasn't worked, and the data shows than changing tax rates has little effect on overall performance. I'm sure this is right, because not only did the U.S. prosper with high marginal rates, other countries do as well. The interesting question, as I see it, is this: Is it possible for a country to grow rich with low taxes and low government investment? And second, is it possible for a country to remain rich by following such a course? I think the answer is no, and the indications based on the limited information we have leads me to think it would be too dangerous an experiment to run.

[drogulus]

     The most plausible relation between taxing and spending and overall performance would seem to be that taxing has less influence and spending has more, but spending paid for by taxes is better than spending on credit. This would explain why social democracies defy the expectations of conservative theorists by remaining rich decade after decade. When they get in trouble they rebalance the social contract without turning to banana republic economics. The idea of making the whole country poorer to make the whole country richer somehow doesn't appeal. What's wrong with these socialists, do they lack common sense?

     Conservatives discount social goods, seeing them purely as costs which drag down the economy. But this appears to be false. More social goods means more money circulates through the lower rungs, and that money travels faster and provides more boost than pools of money at the top. So one measure of success is how wealthy the poor people are. If they are relatively well off, as in a welfare state, everyone else does better, including the highly taxed rich. That's my take on how it actually works.

     

[Todd]

Is it possible for a country to grow rich with low taxes and low government investment? And second, is it possible for a country to remain rich by following such a course?

The answer to the first question is yes.  A case in point is the US in the 19th and early 20th Centuries.  Government taxation and expenditures, or "investments" if you prefer, were miniscule by today's standards.  The answer to the second question is possibly, though the desires of the electorate forbid it.  Politicians may speak of the need to cut social programs, especially the big ones, but they'll be tweaked rather than fundamentally altered.  It's hard to think of any wealthy society where citizens want to reduce the goodies they receive.

The most plausible relation between taxing and spending and overall performance would seem to be that taxing has less influence and spending has more, but spending paid for by taxes is better than spending on credit.

Conservatives discount social goods, seeing them purely as costs which drag down the economy.

These are both rather dubious statements.  With respect to taxing and spending, both are identical from a budgetary standpoint, and from an economic standpoint neither can be said to be more effective in blanket terms.  Tax cuts if properly structured and targeted can have as significant an impact, or perhaps a greater impact, than increased direct spending.  Direct spending can likewise be structured to have a more significant impact than a tax cut.  And of course, taxation can be used to curtail specific activities.  Not for nothing did John Marshall remark that the power to tax is the power to destroy.  The source of funds is of questionable relevance, as well.  It's not possible to argue that the direct, debt funded expenditures of the 1930s and 1940s would have been more effective had they been funded by taxes, for instance.  They couldn't have been.  You'd have to provide some empirical evidence to back up this type of claim.

I'm also not sold on the notion that conservatives discount social goods in quite the manner you suggest.   There is a different emphasis, and they tend to want less in the way of social goods, but I don't think that's quite the same as discounting them.

I must also say that people need to focus less on tax rates and more on overall taxation and distortions in the current system.  Yes, the US had much higher top marginal rates before the 80s, but the OMB and CBO both show aggregate federal tax revenues operating in a narrow range (as a percentage of GDP) for decades.  The peak of federal revenues as a percentage of GDP was in the Clinton years, by the way, when the top marginal rates were less than half what they were in the 1950s.  Marginal rates are hardly the panacea many wish them to be.  Further, contrary to what is often published, higher income people pay a higher percentage of federal taxes now than they did in 1979.  This is based on CBO data that studied taxes from 1979 to 2007. 

It would seem that the solution to America's fiscal "woes" are very clear.  Entitlement spending needs to reformed, most importantly medical expenditures (and here the federal government can use its quasi-monopsony power to help do that to some extent, and it already does), and taxes need to be raised.  From my perspective it makes much more sense to eliminate subsidies and loopholes (which are subsidies themselves) before raising rates.  Top rates will have to rise, but to go to them first doesn't address other ongoing problems. 

[drogulus]

     Perhaps the low tax option of the late 18th century is foreclosed to us now. Economic success was boosted by investments that didn't require the kind of taxes we have today. But we can't go back. Modern states have to tax the way they do. If you need to go back a couple of centuries IOW my point is effectively made. It looks like you can't run a modern state without modern taxes, which is why no state does it. *

     I wish conservatives would say they only discount social goods to some extent. Their arguments usually have an absolutist thrust (you know, the gummint has no right to tax your money). I hate that! Surely the gov't  has some right to tax, the right being in the Constitution and all. And if it has some right, the argument collapses.

  It's hard to think of any wealthy society where citizens want to reduce the goodies they receive.

     The problem is that while some goods are "goodies" many are vital and their absence or diminution impoverish the country. But we'll have to be careful about this.

It would seem that the solution to America's fiscal "woes" are very clear.  Entitlement spending needs to reformed, most importantly medical expenditures (and here the federal government can use its quasi-monopsony power to help do that to some extent, and it already does), and taxes need to be raised.  From my perspective it makes much more sense to eliminate subsidies and loopholes (which are subsidies themselves) before raising rates.  Top rates will have to rise, but to go to them first doesn't address other ongoing problems. 

     I certainly agree, but I think that the decline in government investment is as important a factor in U.S. decline as any other and perhaps more important. We are running out of steam on the computer, Internet, satellite era. Now we need to find something new. I would increase energy investment with a smart electric grid that rapidly allocates power where needed and cuts resistance loss on long lines. That's a big project, the kind government ought to be involved in. We also need a more vigorous space program. What else? Improved air traffic control and new airports (new runways on old ones, too). We have to think synergistically about the entire transportation network and how it works, or doesn't. The fact that some of these are liberal pet projects is not an argument against them IMO.

     _{* No state a GMGer would be caught living in, that is.}