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.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “In Iowa, Romney Fights to Become Caucus Favorite,” shows the fickleness of the state’s voters as they desperately search for an alternative, any alternative, to Mitt Romney.

The latest development, the surging of the Santorum campaign, represents the last possible option for conservatives; all the other conservative candidates have had their time in the sun: Michelle Bachmann after the Ames straw poll, Herman Cain until the accusations of sexual infidelity, and Rick Perry until the oops debating moment.

I must admit that if I were a conservative (I have some measure of sanity so I’m not), Santorum would be my pick. He’s the only one who doesn’t have any fatal flaw. Michelle Bachmann seems to have a problem with historical facts; Newt Gingrich has baggage too numerous to list; Rick Perry is clearly not ready for prime time.

So, it’s finally Santorum’s 15 minutes of fame, and it’s coming at just the right time. He currently doesn’t have the financial resources to run a national campaign, not yet. A win or strong showing in Iowa would change all that. And what Romney really has to fear is that he will emerge as the sole alternative against him. Since Romney can’t seem to break 25 percent in the polls, a single, determined, conservative opponent would be his worst nightmare.

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.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Tax Benefits from Options as Windfall for Businesses,” exposes a tax loophole that will cost the Treasury billions and dilute the stake of other shareholders for major U.S. corporations.

The loophole concerns the current practices regarding stock options. Stock options provide a stake in a company by allowing the purchase of company shares at a set price over a specified period. The options can be cashed in at a later date at a much higher level, but companies can then deduct the difference. This additional deduction is the loophole that can save these companies billions; it has even resulted in companies paying no federal tax as a result.

Today’s revelation comes not long after it was revealed that Congresspersons can engage in insider trading with no penalty, and it provides just one more example of elites profiting from legal benefits typically unavailable to the general population. The only explanation given by companies interviewed about the matter concerns the fact that they can only deduct income/salary for employees up to $1 million per person, so the stock options become a viable alternative.

Meanwhile, since stock options do not cost a company any money, they represent a way of increasing deductions at a later date. One hopes Congress will repeal this loophole if and when they reform the tax code.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Iran Threatens to Choke Route of Oil Shipments,” discusses the rising tension between the United States and Iran as additional sanctions are considered in light of Iran’s continuing attempts to create a nuclear weapon.

Iran’s response, a threat to cut off all oil moving through the strait of Hormuz (through which 20 percent of the world’s oil flows), is strengthened by the current naval exercises the country is holding in the region. The United States immediately countered that it had a plan to keep the strait open, if necessary.

The sanction that seems to have Iran most concerned involves a provision to stop dealing with nations who use Iran’s central bank, an institution through which must of the money flows from Iran’s export of oil.

This threat could constitute one of President Obama’s rare crises, if it is carried out. Most of his other challenges this term have involved the economy or distant matters concerning the Arab Spring.

If Iran blocks the strait of Hormuz, it would create a crisis on a par with the Cuban missile crisis faced by Kennedy. Of course, no one wants this to occur if there is any way to prevent it in accordance with our national security needs.