A note on my critique of depth: The substantive part of the article ran only 313 words. With so few words, depth was impossible, but the format forces me to report what it is, not why it is. Nick Gillespie highlights a specific instance of the President, in his first 100 days, not sticking to an explicit promise with regard to what Arne Duncan will do. I wish that Mr. Gillespie had sought out a congressional Democrat or Secretary Duncan. There must be a case supporting the decision to end a program that aids the education of poor African-Americans. Or perhaps no case can be made. (Remember also, at least two voucher students attend the same school as the children of the President. The problem is not solely with secular objections to Catholic schools.) In that regard, one would like to know whether direct or indirect communications from government education unions forced the end to the voucher system, or, if not, did Obama knowingly speak an untruth in the campaign? Or was he so gripped by ideology that he could not recognize that the expectable opposition of the unions to vouchers and his government's truckling to them would produce a decidedly liberal policy?