The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Campaigns Plan Maximum Push to Raise Money,” provides a sobering look at the role money had on the Republican primary and predicts an even greater outpouring during the general election.

While President Obama may not actually raise a billion dollars — his advisers claim that’s a scare tactic to boost conservative donations — it is going to get pretty close. And with Romney aides predicting a haul of $600 million, not counting their super PAC, it puts great pressure on the President’s campaign to match or exceed it.

But President Obama has only recently launched his super PAC, Priorities USA Action, and it has had trouble raising money so far (not counting Bill Maher’s generous million-dollar donation).

When Mr. Obama bowed out of the federal financing system for the 2008 election, he ended up outspending McCain by a ratio of 4 to 1. This time, many predict the Republicans will achieve parity, and that’s a chilling thought.

Chilling on a variety of fronts: the Republicans would reverse the clock on so many ways we have progressed since the 1950′s, reducing Pell grants and other investments in education, turning back women’s rights on many fronts beyond the hot-button issue of abortion, decimating support for medical research, the environment and so much more.

Yes, the contrast is stark in this election — the Republicans are truly promoting a form of social Darwinism, but human beings are not wild animals. It is our protection and caring for each other that sets us apart and makes us civilized.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Santorum Quits Race, Clearing a Path for Romney,” provides an expected denouement to the contest with Mitt Romney the undisputed winner.

But the way Romney won could come back to bite him. His approach was basically a no holds barred negative campaign to destroy his opponents. That left a bitter taste in their mouths, most especially Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, neither of whom have any desire to rally around and support him now.

Mr. Romney, in the process, ran up his own unfavorable ratings, making the cardinal error of failing to define himself positively before embarking on a negative campaign against his opponents. While his tactics did give him the victory, they also depended on reduced turnouts for the result. This reduced turnout of Republicans could prove critical on election day.

Santorum did not even mouth the word Romney during his suspension speech, a sign of how bitter the contest had become. His immediate reason for leaving the race involved the $2.9 million negative campaign Romney was teeing up against him in Pennsylvania. If Santorum lost his home state, it would have doomed any Presidential run in 2016, and that’s why he quit.

One wonders what Romney will do now to try and woo the conservatives back without affecting his chances in the general election.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Big Turnaround on Fundraising for GOP Panel,” sounds a warning note to Democrats in the era of Super PACs: Beware of Republican fat cats.

The Republican National Committee has taken advantage of a division of responsibilities, albeit informal, with Super PACS, allowing the latter to take the lead on general election advertising while the RNC fills up its coffers with donations and start to build a ground game for like-minded voters in November.

Michael Steele, the former RNC Chair, left the organization deeply in debt, and the current organization is not only paying it off but acting proactively as well. They have also created a “presidential trust” solely targeted at the general election, once the nominee is officially chosen.

President Obama’s campaign, who had a substantial advantage in fundraising the last time around, is scrambling to compensate. They have invested heavily in information technology, data collection and party building while the Republican have focused more on creating a network of large donors.

One wonders, though, if the Republicans are taking the right track. The President is building the infrastructure to success while the Republicans will only have the money to do so, two very different situations.

One thing that noone doubts — especially in the swing states — there will be a barrage of heavy advertising for a lot longer than most people want, or can bear.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Romney Regains Stride with Victories in 2 States,” describes two key victories for Mitt Romney — dubbed sarcastically as “Mittens” by Maureen Dowd — in Arizona and Michigan. The latter proved especially significant as Mr. Romney beat back a determined challenge from Rick Santorum, thus avoiding the humiliation of losing in his home state.

Arizona delivered a winner-take-all prize of 29 delegates while Michigan’s proportional representation provided 15 delegates each to Romney and Santorum. Mr. Romney, who is still leading easily in the delegate count, faces a daunting challenge on Super Tuesday, with contests in more than 10 states, many of them in the South, an area particularly resistant to his candidacy.

The Republican nominating race has dragged on through three months and 20 debates, and most of us are getting a little tired of it. The candidates often get sidetracked onto social issues and fail to address the economic concerns of most Americans. President Obama is becoming stronger, and his reelection looks more likely by the day.

Newt Gingrich is poised to make a semi-comeback again, with strong poll numbers in Georgia and Tennessee. Meanwhile, Mr. Romney seems unable to put the race away with a series of gaffes on the campaign trail that continue to dog him.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Romney, Seeking Traction, Duels with Santorum,” provides a vivid description of the Republican Presidential debate, but it was unclear whether anything had really changed.

Rick Santorum, the new Republican frontrunner, was on the hot seat due to his status and faced a withering series of attacks by Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. He parried them all fairly well but was definitely on the defensive. Michigan and Arizona have primaries in six days with “Super Tuesday” a week after that, but this could still be a long, drawn-out contest. Even after Super Tuesday, the majority of the delegates will still remain to be chosen in future primaries.

Romney and his Super PAC continue to pound the airwaves with negative ads, a tactic that may win in the short run but could eventually prove problematic due to the eclipse of any positive vision by Romney for the country. And while he was the only person last night who could claim no Washington experience, I’m not sure how much of a benefit that will be in a general election.

The debates at times can get a little puerile, with a contentious atmosphere and topics that are not really on the minds of voters. They tend of make all the candidates look a little small, and that could prove to be troublesome in November as well.

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, “200,000 New Jobs are Positive Sign in U.S. Economy,” represents some much needed good news for President Obama. It’s the sixth straight month the economy has added 100,000 or more jobs, and it enables the President to argue that he took over a financial disaster and is in the process of bringing the economy back.

The news was positive on nearly every front. Consumer confidence increased, and the recovery was broad-based in nearly every industrial sector. It is now up to Congress to ensure the recovery continues by extending the payroll tax cut through the whole year instead of just until February.

Of course, the Republican candidates are loath to give the President any credit for the improved economic conditions even though they are quick to attack him when the economy lags. Mitt Romney made an unsubstantiated claim that the President does not understand how the economy works despite the President’s erudite advisors.

And meanwhile, the events on the Republican side represent somewhat of a farce while the White House deals with the weighty matters of running the country. Tonight’s debate does prove to be entertaining though as Newt Gingrich promises to sink his teeth into Romney after being humiliated in Iowa by Romney’s Super PAC.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Romney Showing Financial Muscle for Next Round,” provides a stark contrast between the Romney and Santorum campaigns. Romney is trying to rally the establishment behind him, rolling out an endorsement by once-bitter rival John McCain and appearing in New Hampshire with former Governor John Sununu. Santorum took a slow propeller plane from Iowa to get to the granite state, missing prime news coverage in the process.

As a long-time political affcionado, it’s hard to get excited by the Romney campaign. It is the typical pre-packaged merchandise that screams business as usual, while the Santorum campaign still exudes a certain sincerity of purpose and surprise.

I don’t agree with the conservative premise; government can do a lot of good things and is necessary for large-scale action in many cases. Just cutting programs out of a nostalgia for the past avoids the fact that things really weren’t so good back then; our civilization has progressed with increased compassion for the vulnerable and needy among us. Sure some programs need to be reformed, but that doesn’t mean you “throw out the baby with the bath water.”

Still, of all the Republican candidates, if I had to choose one, Santorum would be it. He lacks any of the fatal flaws the others one possess and can be trusted to work with Democrats when necessary for the good of the country.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Dueling Romney, Santorum Surges in Iowa Caucuses,” recounts a remarkable political story of how Rick Santorum, the biggest of underdogs, came in a close second in the hotly contested Iowa caucus to kickoff the 2012 presidential elections.

With a shoestring budget and becoming the first candidate to visit all 99 counties in the State, Rick Santorum hung in there while competitors were considered by the voters and rejected. He always provided a pure image, and his conservative credentials were never in doubt.

The contest did not conclude until late last night with Santorum just behind Romney by a handful of votes. Romney was unable to even match his vote total from four years ago, and his decision to go all in to win the contest may have been a poor one.

Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich was hungry for bear after being devastated by negative campaign ads by a Super PAC run by Romney staff members. Romney’s claim of no control over the PAC was a tenuous assertion at best.

Now Newt will attack Romney in future debates while staying clear of Rick Santorum who has emerged as the conservative alternative. Even Chris Matthews of Hardball praised Santorum last night for a powerful victory speech.

This is starting to get interesting.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “PAC Ads Rip Gingrich as Romney Stands Clear,” describes an unprecedented assault on a candidate by a “Super PAC” closely affiliated but not directly coordinating with the Romney campaign.

The Super PAC, Restore Our Future, is not bound by any campaign finance regulations and does not even have to disclose its contributions until January. Meanwhile Mr. Romney’s campaign is only running positive ads, effectively outsourcing the negative stuff because negative campaigning tends to effect both the target and the one making the charge.

However, Mr. Romney attended an organizational meeting of Restore Our Future this summer with several high-stakes campaign contributors, effectively blessing the organization’s efforts, and his former finance director is now ensconced with the PAC.

This duplicity has been enabled by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United ruling, a decision that allows so-called outside organizations to evade any regulations in the name of free speech. But this result has nothing to do with free speech; it just legitimizes the tearing down of an individual by those used to having their way through money and power.

The ravaging of Mr. Gingrich shows the worst in American politics, and Mr. Romney deserves to be punished for it.