In his methodological critique of APD research, John Gerring steers clear of the issues that have bogged down debates about methodology in recent years. He does not argue that historically-oriented students of American politics should adopt some allegedly superior method current in other sectors of political science, nor does he demand clarification of an alternative method that might be more pertinent given some allegedly distinctive qualities of the APD project. Instead, he scores the project for its failure to measure up on universal standards of good research design—clear concepts, clear propositions, clear logic. The resulting critique is, on its face, singularly disarming. What self-respecting scholar wants to be unclear?