The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Pressed, Romney Shares Tax Data,” illustrates the different world that the Republican candidate lives in compared to the rest of us. With a fortune estimated at $190 to $250 million, Mr. Romney is particularly divorced from reality. His joking about being unemployed, his reference to more than $300,000 in speaking fees as not very much, and other remarks are easily understood by the top one percent.

At a time of increased awareness about income inequality, and the unwillingness of many of the wealthy to pay their fair share, one wonders how this will play with voters in a campaign against President Obama.

Also, yesterday, Mr. Romney revealed that he pays an effective income tax of 15 percent, far less than many with an earned salary. That’s because the Bush tax cuts treat investment income as a separate class, particularly convenient for the wealthy who earn most of their income in this form.

Of course, Romney’s Republican opponents jumped all over each other to take advantage of the most recent revelations. Gone are the days when it was considered poor form to criticize a fellow Republicans. It’s good to see the Republicans duking it out for a change — because that’s the way our democracy was meant to work, and hopefully it will rebound to President Obama’s advantage.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Forceful Attack Against Romney in G.O.P. Debate,” focuses on the continuing dynamics of the Republican race for President and shows the power of ego and human pride in determining the outcome.

Mitt Romney is cruising on his way to the nomination because the conservative opposition, most notably the conservative candidates, refuse to step aside to choose one opponent to represent their views. More specifically, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are battling to claim that mantle, and, in so doing, may be destroying any chance of success.

If just one of them could step aside for the good of their cause, they would receive accolades, power and influence far beyond their wildest dreams. They would be a shoo-in for an influential cabinet post, ambassadorship and maybe even the Vice Presidency.

But I guess if you have the ego to run for President of the United States, it’s hard to step aside for the good of the “conservative cause.” They both know the necessity, but each thinks the other should yield.

To put it bluntly, if they really were social conservatives, they would understand the role of humility in the Christian faith, and the power of Jesus’ adage that many who are first shall be last, and many who are last shall be first.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Iran Adversaries Said to Step Up Covert Actions,” correctly portrayed the latest assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist as a potential alternative to war against Iran.

The covert actions currently being undertaken by the United States and Israel include assassinations, bombings, cyberattacks and defections, and they are having a devastating effect. The latest incident, the assassination of a supervisor at the Natanz Uranium Enrichment Plant, was carried out with the same modus operandi as the other assassinations: a motorcycle draws up to the car, attaches a magnetic bomb to the outer surface, then speeds away.

In other incidents, just three months ago, a bomb exploded at an Iranian missile plant, wreaking intensive damage and killing an Iranian general at the same time. And the famous Stuxnet computer worm put about a fifth of the Iranian centrifuges out of action.

The one nice thing about these events is that the Iranians don’t know who to retaliate against. Unlike war, which would draft swift international condemnations, sabotage does not evoke the same sort of nationalist outrage.

The hope is that these covert actions in combination with international sanctions will eventually make the Iranians realize that the cost of a nuclear weapon is just too great and not worth the effort.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Iran Sentences American to Die on Spy Charges,” represents another wrench in the frigid relations between the two countries and is unlikely to result in a negotiated release.

Iran is feeling besieged these days after four rounds of sanctions by the United Nations, a computer virus against its centrifuges, the assassination of nuclear scientists and threatened boycotts against its most lucrative export, oil.

As a result, they have conducted military exercises and threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, an essential shipping lane for Arab oil through the Persian Gulf. The U.S. military has responded vigorously to this threat and said it would be a red line that Iran should not cross.

The American convicted has a military background and could conceivably be a spy. The CIA has refused to comment on the allegations, but the family and U.S. government have protested vigorously. One hope is that the conviction has been made as a bargaining chip for possible nuclear talks offered by Turkey as a host.

Meanwhile, the Republicans continue to make bellicose statements about Iran that are totally unhelpful to resolving an already difficult situation. Only Ron Paul seems to understand that war is a terrible thing and should only occur as a last resort.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “A Sharper Edge for Republicans as Voting Nears,” describes how the atmosphere for the Republican presidential primary election in New Hampshire has changed in just 12 hours.

A pretty tame debate on Saturday night, widely acknowledged to be won by Mitt Romney, if only for staving off his opponents, was transformed into an all-out donnybrook in a follow-up debate on Sunday morning on a special edition of Meet the Press.

Previewing a theme the Democrats will inevitably raise, Mr. Romney’s opponents attacked him for his pedigree, and Romney played right into their hands by stating that a politician should not run for office until he has fully paid off his mortgage. Newt Gingrich seized upon this error by stating that he felt ordinary people should enter politics as well.

And there were many other barbs. Even Jon Huntsman got into the act, attacking Romney for his hyper-partisan attitude, after Romney attacked him for working for President Obama.

Republican conservatives, however, remain badly split, and unless they can put their egos aside and settle upon one alternative to Romney, they will find themselves at a lackluster convention in Florida, nominating the man they all love to hate.

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, “Iraq Insurgents Take Up Politics, Raising Tensions,” describes an alarming attempt by a militant Iraqi group, beholden to Iran, to enter the Iraqi government, with the blessing of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

Maliki is playing a political game, trying to get new allies in the Iraqi parliament where he is currently persona non grata after an attempt to arrest the country’s Sunni Vice President on hard-to-believe accusations of running a hit squad.

This move resulted in a walkout by many members of Parliament, leaving them without the quorum necessary to do business. Maliki claims that the new group, Asabi Ahl al-Haq, or AAH for short, has foresworn violence … after killing scores of Americans and being identified as having a close relationship with the Iranian al-Quds fighting force.

That remains to be seen with numerous American diplomats and securithy contractors still in the country. Even the belligerent political party of Moktada al-Sadr has had a falling out with AAH and views them as too radical to enter the government. Of course, AAH would need to win some elections first.

And meanwhile, violence has spiked again in the country after the Americans’ departure. Multiple bombings, including a recent one killing more than 40 Shiite pilgrims, threaten to renew a civil war in the nation.

What a mess.

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, “Panetta to Offer Budget Strategy Cutting Military,” describes some momentous decisions our new Defense Secretary will have to make about the future of our country.

Chief among them is the military doctrine that we will maintain the capability to fight two sustained ground wars at the same time. This proved to be impractical with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and there is a debate about how much nation-building the army should be responsible for in any case.

Both Republicans and Democrats agree that cuts of about $450 billion are sustainable, but that represents only eight percent of the military budget, and steeper draw downs occurred after the end of the wars in Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War. Most importantly, the debate over what areas to reduce is a critical one.

Military personnel costs account for about a third of the budget, and many are focusing on this area, especially the generous retirement benefits. On the other hand, we maintain a lot of personnel at bases overseas, and even a conservative such as Tom Coburn noted we could still maintain our capabilities if we just left air bases and naval ports open as logistical links.

Two other large strategic items include the order of 2,500 F-35 stealth jets and the amount needed for replacement costs for our nuclear delivery triad, systems that are nearing the end of their useful service. The size for both of them is predicated on the likelihood of fighting an army with an advanced military capability.