The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Outcry is Fierce to Cut in Funds by Cancer Group,” describes a furious reaction on social media regarding the decision by the Komen for the Cure foundation, one of the major anti-breast cancer organizations in the country, the one responsible for the pink ribbons, to suspend its support of breast cancer screenings by Planned Parenthood.

The decision was taken in cowardice, at fear of the same heated reaction that has now been generated, because of the dual nature of Planned Parenthood as both one of the major women’s health clinics in the nation and a source of abortions.

As a pro-life Democrat, I am torn by this controversy, understanding the fervor of emotions on both sides, and I am particularly swayed by the fact that one in five women rely on Planned Parenthood for their health coverage. Mayor Bloomberg, experiencing a similar split, donated $250,000 to Planned Parenthood after the Komen decision.

I am also acutely aware, however, of the feelings of pro-life activists who view the taking of an innocent life as murder, and that murder transcends most other considerations.

Since the government is not involved in this controversy, perhaps we should acknowledge the freedom of the Komen Group to make its own decisions in the abortion arena, and the similar freedom of pro-choice individuals to boycott the Komen Group in response. It is terrible, however, to watch the polarization caused by the entry of politics into women’s healthcare, and the deterioration of that healthcare as a result.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Secrecy Shrouds Super PAC Funds in Latest Filing,” gives some idea of the way things used to be during the Watergate era, when the Republican National Committee and President Richard Nixon would freely use “slush funds” with no legal penalty.

If anything, things seem even worse this year. As we learn from this morning’s article, it goes beyond just the Super PACs and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United, when it opened the door to unlimited contributions to Super PACs.

Now it appears that Super PACs are able to even further disguise their donors by using affiliated non-profit organizations. In fact, one of the donors to Romney’s Super PAC gave $250,000 from a company with a P.O. Box for an address and no known employees.

President Obama truly was prescient when he castigated the Supreme Court at last year’s State of the Union address. I can’t remember the last time our campaigns have been so dirty with negative ads paid for by millionaires and billionaires. The implications for our democracy truly are scary.

How this ruling can be reversed remains to be seen. But it and our democracy can not co-exist for much longer. After this year’s general election campaign, which will be even worse, there will be an undeniable demand for change.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Buoyant Romney Talks of Victory on Eve of Voting,” describes a candidate who sees the nomination within his grasp, but it doesn’t bode well for his campaign and shows a lack of political instincts.

Mr. Romney’s victory lap around Florida reminds me of a celebration by another Republican, George W. Bush and his “Mission Accomplished” banner. It may turn off voters and lead to a closer result than he anticipates, giving a breath of life to an opponent who just won’t go away.

Mr. Romney’s attempt to rub it in after “carpet bombing” a fellow member of his Party gives Mr. Gingrich all the excuse he needs to take the fight all the way to the Convention. And with the new Republican format of proportional allocation of delegates instead of winner-take-all primaries, the Speaker can create a sizable disruption when he gets there.

At his age, Mr. Gingrich has nothing to lose. There will be no campaign four years from now, and he has a reputation for being overly sensitive at the best of times — remember when he shut down the government in a fit of pique after being seated at the back of Air Force One?

Anything less than a double-digit victory for Romney now will be viewed as weakness. That’s what happens when you show too much relish about winning and thereby change the expectations.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “U.S. Drones Stir Outrage in Iraq; Fleet May Grow,” describes the increasing use of a new technology for the military, CIA and now, the State Department.

U.S. technology has always served as the trump card to keep us on top, and the new use of drones for protection of U.S. citizens, especially as monitoring devices for potential threats against State Department convoys, empowers our officials in their diplomatic undertakings.

It’s also important to understand the difference between State Department drones and military ones. The most important, that State Department drones are unarmed, gives their use added legitimacy. In fact, the wingspan for unarmed aerial vehicles (UAVs) is 18 inches compared to 55 feet for the armed Predator and Reaper drones more typically employed over Pakistan.

Of course, the Iraqi government is now making a big deal about these unarmed UAVs, claiming sovereignty over its own skies. However, much of the clamor is for domestic political purposes, and after the withdrawal of U.S. armed troops, it is hard to fathom that the current government would stop the use of these drones, employed partly for their own protection.

We’ll see what happens. However, after recent events in Somalia, our President is getting a reputation as someone not to mess around with.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Economy Grew at Quicker Pace in 4th Quarter,” provides some element of hope for the Obama administration. Fears of a double-dip recession seem to have largely subsided, and the pace of growth, while slow, is picking up.

The growth rate in the fourth quarter rose to an annual equivalent of 2.8 percent. Credit is expanding, and consumer spending also rose slightly. The housing sector is also undergoing a comeback, even though the market remains very depressed.

There are some storm clouds on the horizon, however. The European sovereign debt crisis still isn’t resolved, and the conflict with Iran could be detrimental if that nation tries to close the Straits of Hormuz, a main transit waterway for the world’s oil.

Also, our productivity has risen to an extent where we are creating the same output as before the 2007 crisis, only with six million fewer jobs. And the unemployment rate has emerged as an overall barometer for the economy, affecting everything from consumer spending to political dynamics.

Economic statistics can be misleading, and in this election year, the obfuscation is sometimes intentional. And it’s hard to envisage any kind of reform in an election year either, which may be a good thing with the Tea Party in effective charge of the House.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “As Tensions Rise, Egypt Bars Exit of Six Americans,” describes a situation fraught with peril and a possible suspension of U.S. military aid.

Congress has conditioned foreign aid on the continuation of democratic progress in Egypt, and the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, must certify that progress to release the appropriated funds. After President Obama specifically called Egypt’s military leader, Field Marshall Tantawi, to emphasize that process, the Egyptian government has refused to allow six Americans working at NGOs to leave the country.

The organizations involved, the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute, are pro-democracy groups working in Egypt to affect positive change. They have been repeatedly raided by police in recent months, and this week, one of the directors, Sam LaHood, was arrested at an Egyptian airport before he took a flight to Dubai.

Complicating matters further, Mr. LaHood is the son of Ray LaHood, the transportation secretary in President Obama’s administration.

Now, there is a big kerfuffle, and the United States’ military aid to Egypt, totaling $1.3 billion is at stake. This sum was previously regarded as inviolate as a positive reinforcement for the 1979 treaty with Israel. With Islamic-based parties moving into power, even the treaty itself is at stake.

It is a tangled situation even for professional diplomats and a skilled negotiator such as Ms. Clinton.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Fed Vows to Keep Rates Near Zero Until Late 2014,” describes an engaged Federal Reserve, trying to make up for the gridlock in Washington by pursuing its own actions to nurse along our economic recovery.

After its latest meeting, the Fed promised to keep interest rates low through the end of 2014, an expansion of 18 months compared to its previous commitment. Ben Bernanke, so vilified by Republicans, may be doing more to help the economy than they are.

The ability of monetary policy to help the economy has been much debated of late, but when you’re without a job, every action helps. The Fed predicted that our rate of growth would recover slowly, from 2.7 percent this year, to 3.2 percent the next, and up to 4 percent in 2014.

Significantly, the Fed is making promises that extend beyond the tenure of its current head, Ben Bernanke. And the Fed can always change policy before then should the economic “facts on the ground” change as well.

The Fed’s outlook on unemployment remains grim. They are predicting a rate of at least 6.7 percent by the end of 2014, due to a gradually improving condition. But that may not be enough to save President Obama from what promises to be a brutal reelection campaign.

And, if a Republican gets in, the situation may deteriorate further. Because, in addition to rejecting scientific advice on global warming, Republicans do not believe in Keynesian economics either and are likely to reduce spending at the very worst time.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Romney Unleashes Attack with Gingrich Sole Target,” describes an increasingly desperate situation for the Romney campaign. After being trounced by Gingrich in the South Carolina primary, and with national polls now showing a Gingrich lead, Romney is trying to reproduce what he did in Iowa, bury the Gingrich campaign in a sea of negativity.

It’s not working. The Adelson family has now ponied up an additional $5 million to counter the Romney’s advantage in organization and fundraising. And you can only go negative so many times before the voters turn off.

We all know the story of Newt Gingrich’s history, his so-called baggage, etc. The reason he is winning is because he is the best debater on the stage. And that’s the way it should be in a democracy.

Tonight, finally, President Obama will get equal time. His State of the Union address will put to rest all the Republican nonsense about him being a socialist, European, etc. The fact of the matter is that his policies have been relatively middle of the road, many of them having been proposed by Republicans in the past.

Anyway, for a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, it’s enjoyable to watch the Republicans in a circular firing squad. However, I wouldn’t be complacent about Newt Gingrich. Romney has already made that mistake, and now, it’s too late for him to rectify it.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Romney Relents on Tax Returns as Race Rolls On,” describes an embattled candidate and a confident winner, and the categorization is not what you would have thought just two short weeks ago.

And that’s because Newt Gingrich is the confident winner. He seems to have captured the anger of the Republican base, and his debating skills have eclipsed Romney and Santorum because he is not afraid to show some unscripted anger. A candidate who, as Gingrich describes it, is “comfortable in his own skin,” will always beat a phony.

Now, Gingrich does have some high negatives in the country at large, but I’m not so sure the Democrats should be happy if he ends up as the nominee. That unpredictable element could always break in his favor and convince independents to vote for him.

Another debate occurs this evening on NBC in Tampa, Florida, and that’s got to be about the last place that Romney wants to be. Debates are good for democracy, but they represent free air time for Gingrich that he otherwise couldn’t afford. And Mr. Gingrich’s style is tending to create standing ovations by the audience, also reinforcing his message and rise in the polls.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Tightening Race is Abrupt Blow to Romney Team,” describes the almost unbelievable turnaround in the Republican presidential primary in South Carolina.

Just a week or so ago, Romney appeared to be the odds-on favorite to win and complete a three-contest sweep, for the first time ever. Then, the Iowa Elections Board declared Santorum the winner in that primary where Romney was previously touted as the leader by eight votes. And Gingrich began his super PAC attack ads on Romney’s tenure as CEO of Bain Capital.

Since then, Gingrich has excelled at televised debates while Romney has hemmed and hawed about releasing his tax returns. And the ability of Gingrich to pivot on a question about his ex-wife, to transform it into an attack on the media, was nothing short of masterful.

Now Gingrich is ahead in the polls, and the Romney camp has switched to a long-term strategy, to grind it out in the hunt for delegates. Romney still possesses the lead in organizational strengths, but then so did Hillary Clinton in her battle with Barack Obama.

The candidates are already starting to look ahead beyond Florida (January 31) to Nevada (February 4). I’m glad not to be living in those states where the citizens will be bombarded by ads day and night.