The third — and most entertaining — debate of the 2012 Republican presidential race is over. 
 
 We watched — and live-blogged! — the whole thing. Below is our first cut at who won and who lost during the 105 minutes (or so) of debating at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California. 
 
 Agree or disagree with our picks? The comments section awaits. 
 
 WINNERS 
 
 * Mitt Romney: Slow and steady won the debate for the former Massachusetts governor. He started off a bit shaky and seemed slightly off his game when Texas Gov. Rick Perry went on the attack right from the start. But, Romney showed his experience and steadied himself as the proceedings wore on — repeatedly giving answers that sounded reasonable and, dare we say it, presidential. Romney continues to execute his strategy: focus on President Obama and the economy while avoiding too much back and forth with his Republican rivals. It worked (again) tonight. 
 
 * Jon Huntsman: After a nonexistent performance in the August Iowa debate, the former Utah governor was much more part of the conversation this time around — delivering jabs to Romney and Perry as he tried to contrast his record in the Beehive State with theirs. Huntsman also looked like he belonged on the stage tonight — a major change from his August showing. His biggest problem remains that his tonal approach to the race — sensible moderation — still doesn’t seem to fit the Republican primary electorate. But, for tonight, Huntsman did himself proud. 
 
 * First 45 minutes Rick Perry: With all eyes on him, the Texas governor started out strong — delivering a solid answer on jobs and showing a willingness to mix it up with Romney. He was confident without being brash and seemed well versed — or at least well rehearsed — on the issues of the day. If the debate ended after 45 minutes, we might be talking about how Perry had dispelled all doubts about his readiness for the national glare of a presidential race and all it entails. 
 
 * NBC/Politico: In politics, it’s just as important to be lucky as it is to be good. NBC and Politico were both with a well-timed debate that gave America a chance to take an extended look at Perry, and a series of quality questions that forced the candidates to sometimes go beyond their talking points. The first 45 minutes of the debate were, without question, the highlight of the race so far. Kudos. 
 
 * Rick Santorum: The focus on Bachmann during the June New Hampshire debate and the August Iowa tilt overshadowed two solid performances by the former Pennsylvania Senator. Santorum isn’t everyone’s cup of tea but for social conservatives looking for someone who is with them on every issue, he might well be the guy. Santorum came across as knowledgeable and credible — two adjectives that any candidate would like to have describe a debate performance. 
 
 LOSERS 
 
 * Michele Bachmann: The Minnesota Congresswoman was a total nonentity in the debate. At one point, she didn’t say a single word for more than 20 minutes. Bachmann supporters will almost certainly blame the moderators for freezing her out but she needed to find ways to inject herself into the various fights between the likes of Perry, Romney and Huntsman. Bachmann seemed to get the message towards the end of the debate but it was already too late. It felt like she was irrelevant to the conversation tonight — and that’s a bad place for her to be. 
 
 * Last Hour Rick Perry: After a strong start, Perry seemed to lose focus — meandering on his answer on Social Security and badly fumbling on climate change. Some of Perry’s struggles in the middle portion of the debate had to do with the fact that he was getting tough questions and having to weather a steady attack from his opponents — he joked at one point that he had become a “pinata” — but that’s what you get when you’re the frontrunner. Perry salvaged the second half of the debate with a very strong answer on the death penalty. But his uneven performance will likely keep the conversation about whether he is a clear frontrunner alive, which is not what the Perry forces wanted. 
 
 * Newt Gingrich: Bashing the media for trying to get Republicans to disagree with one another is a sure applause line in front of a GOP crowd. But, in a debate the whole point is for the candidates to, well, debate their positions on issues. Elections are about choices so the best way to inform people about their options is to probe the candidates on where they differ with one another. Right? 
 
 * Raise your hand questions: Only one “by a show of hands” query made it into the debate. The Fix is a sucker for lightning round-type questions but they were a major loser tonight. 
 
 More on PostPolitics 
 
 Debate Live-Blog by The Fix 
 
 Perry, Romney spar in debate 
 
 Perry on Ponzi schemes 
 
 Debate highlights 
 
 Obama’s Big Speech ||||| The most intellectually interesting portion of tonight's Republican presidential debate occurred in its opening moments, when Rick Perry and Mitt Romney sparred over their states’ record of job creation. Perry cited his states record of creating jobs. Romney replied that his state inherited a worse situation, and wound up with a lower level of unemployment, while of course ignoring that Perry has governed during a recession. Perry responded that Romney created jobs at a lower rate than Michael Dukakis. 
 
 The whole exchange seemed to demonstrate conclusively that the method of evaluating a governor’s record by its job creation, by any measure, borders on useless. The effect of state policy, compared to the broader environment or other factors beyond a governor’s control, is simply too miniscule. Of course, this realization kicks the slats out from beneath Perry’s entire general election economic message. 
 
 Yet Perry, stylistically, ruled the roost. The media seems to consider Romney the winner. Pardon the condescension, but they’re not thinking like Republican base voters. Romney approaches every question as if he is in an actual debate, trying to provide the most intellectually compelling answer available, within the bounds of political expediency. Perry treats questions as interruptions. What scientists do you trust on climate change? I don’t want to risk the economy. Are you taking a radical position on social security? We can have reasons or we can have results. His total liberation from the constraints of reason give Perry a chance to represent the Republican id in a way Romney simply cannot match. 
 
 In this way Perry eerily apes the style of George W. Bush, who was also mocked for his intellectually vapid debating style, but who succeeded in rallying Republicans behind him. I don’t think it’s a coincidence. I suspect the Bush-Perry debating style broadcasts a subliminal message of strong leadership. Romney feels compelled to bind himself to the parameters of the question before him. Perry ignores them. It is, in a sense, an alpha male move. I am not going to lower myself to your premise about scientists. I am going to declare my principles. 
 
 In my view, Perry established his alpha male style, and that impression will matter more than any position or statement he’s made. 
 
 Update: I removed the photo above, which I thought was a real photograph, but turns out to be photoshopped. 
 
 share this article on facebook or twitter print this article ||||| Rick Perry and Mitt Romney eclipsed the Republican presidential field Wednesday night by brawling over their jobs records and trading practiced barbs in a high-stakes debate that further distanced the two front-runners from the beleaguered pack. 
 
 But at what price? 
 
 The testy exchanges allowed Perry to cast himself as a conservative truth-teller and Romney to bill himself as the most electable GOP candidate. In doing so, both men exposed each others’ political vulnerabilities and risked alienating independent voters who are looking for more civility in politics. 
 
 Oh, and they ticked off their rivals – the also-rans, no doubt jealous of all the attention. 
 
 From National Journal: 
 
 PICTURES: The Many Cars of Joe Biden 
 
 
 
 Debates Will Sharpen Differences Among the GOP's 2012 Field 
 
 
 
 Obama to Propose $300B to Jump-Start Jobs 
 
 
 
 VIDEO: Challenges Still to Come in the Fight Against Terrorism 
 
 
 
 Four Ways the Postal Service Might Stay Solvent 
 
 “There are eight of us up here,” complained Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, after being ignored during the debate’s opening minutes. 
 
 Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich bristled at Politico’s John Harris for asking a pointed but fair question. “I’m frankly not interested in your efforts to get Republicans fighting each other,” Gingrich said. “Whoever the nominee is, we’re all for defeating Barack Obama.” 
 
 Sure, but first, one of them has to beat the rest. 
 
 If national polls are to be believed (and that is always a dubious assumption), Perry is best positioned to win the GOP nomination. Which is why it was a curious – if not risky – strategy to come out swinging against Romney. Indeed, the Texas governor can’t seem to pass up a fight; he attacked Paul, as well as a Republican who wasn’t even on the stage: former Bush adviser Karl Rove. 
 
 And yet Perry played the martyr. “I kind of feel,” he said, “like the piñata here at the party.” 
 
 With good reason. Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, started the fight with an early and subtle dig at Perry’s long career in government. Romney’s campaign quickly followed up with a press release calling Perry a “career politician.” In case anybody missed the point, the press release included photos of Perry aging in office. 
 
 Perry praised Romney for creating jobs as a private businessman, but said his record as governor “did not match that.” 
 
 Romney accused Perry of taking credit for creating jobs in Texas that were the result of conditions outside of Perry’s control. To claim credit, Romney said, would be “like Al Gore saying he created the Internet.” 
 
 Ouch. It’s a low blow in GOP politics to compare a rival to Gore, especially when that rival is Perry – a former Democrat who once supported Gore. 
 
 Perry hit lower. “Mike Dukakis created jobs three times faster than you did, Mitt,” he said. 
 
 “As a matter of fact,” Romney replied, George W. Bush and his predecessors “created jobs faster than you did.” 
 
 Same to you and more of it. 
 
 “It’s nice to see everyone came prepared for tonight’s debate,” cracked NBC’s Brian Williams, co-moderator of the debate. 
 
 Indeed, candidates not named Perry and Romney also had good nights. Jon Huntsman stood out as a reasonable and moderate candidate who could go toe-to-toe with the first tier (“I have to say, Mitt, now is not the time … to start a trade war.”). Rep. Michele Bachmann took the steadiest aim at President Obama, underscoring her impressive discipline and polish (“Obamaare is killing jobs”). And Paul, after a slow start, finally got the attention he craves, even though it came with Perry questioning his loyalty to the GOP. 
 
 But it was the Texas cowboy and Massachusetts businessman who stole the show and stuck to their talking points. “Maybe it’s time to have some provocative language in this country,” Perry said, delivering all that and more. 
 
 He refused to back down from calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme, saying "it is a monstrous lie" to suggest to young Americans that Social Security will be available for them as it stands. Reminded that Rove has called such language "toxic," Perry snapped: "You know, Karl has been over the top for a long time in some of his remarks. So I am not responsible for Karl anymore." 
 
 Nope, but Perry is responsible for every outside-the-mainstream policy he backed and every over-the-top statement he made in his 11 years as governor. Evolution. Texas secession. And more, much more, if Romney has his way. 
 
 Want to stay ahead of the curve? Sign up for National Journal’s AM & PM Must Reads. News and analysis to ensure you don’t miss a thing. ||||| 9.57 pm. My take-away? Perry has proved himself an extreme, inarticulate, incurious W clone. He doubled down on the vicious attacks on social security; and his rhetoric was off-key. Huntsman emerged as an actual candidate; Romney kicked ass. Bachmann is wearing thinner and thinner. Paul is Paul. Santorum is a Vatican crank. Gingrich is an angry old man. Cain has no business being up there. Perry's poor performance gives Palin an opening. And an actual argument that people can understand about economic policy did not emerge. 
 
 Stay tuned for the Dish's trademarked summary of reaction from around the web. 
 
 9.52 pm. I still have no clear idea of what any of these candidates would do to turn the economy around. I'd support major tax reform, but all they have been offering is warmed over Reaganism. But Reagan is relevant for the 1980s, not the 20-teens. An entire generation has grown up and moved on. Tax receipts are at their lowest in fifty years; infrastructure is obviously vital; job growth was pathetic after the Bush tax cuts. Of course we all agree that only the private sector can truly spur economic growth, but, really: that's it? 
 
 9.51 pm. A reader writes: 
 
 So let me make sure I have this straight … Huntsman is the Superego, Perry is the Id and Romney is the Ego, right? 
 
 9.48 pm. A spontaneous round of applause for executing people! And Perry shows no remorse, not even a tiny smidgen of reflection, especially when we know for certain that he signed the death warrant for an innocent man. Here's why I find it impossible to be a Republican: any crowd that instantly cheers the execution of 234 individuals is a crowd I want to flee, not join. This is the crowd that believes in torture and executions. Can you imagine the torture that Perry would authorize? Thank God he's doing so poorly tonight. 
 
 9.47 pm. A shout-out to my colleagues' live-chat on the debate here. 
 
 9.44 pm. Does the president have the right to fire the Fed chairman tomorrow? Gingrich's belligerence is truly off the charts. Why is he up there? Listening to this debate, it seems as if American conservatism is now actively contemptuous of any environmental protection. Green conservatism is dead in this country. 
 
 9.40 pm. Huntsman walks the walk on evolution and climate science - in terms of electability. He's riding a wave tonight. Perry flails - associating climate science denial with Galileo! Then he seems robbed of speech in opposing any measures for green technology. An awful response. Then Bachmann wants to drain the Everglades. We're really reduced to this? And Bachmann thinks she is the defender of science in all this! 
 
 9.38 pm. Santorum seems to think that the end of the Soviet empire should mean any shift in American foreign policy. And then his assertion that the UN forced the US to invade Libya, when the US was lobbying the UN furiously, is nuts. 
 
 9.32 pm. Romney offers no digestible plans to get the economy moving. Perry insists that Keynes is finished, and argues that the stimulus created or saved zero jobs. And his inability to criticize Bush and Cheney's war in Iraq is somewhat pathetic - but very Republican. Bachmann, meanwhile, sounds more and more extreme. Her Christianist belief in Greater Israel for ever is striking. And then there is her inability to deal with argumentative logic. I agree with her on Libya, but she could at least concede, as I have, that the departure of Qaddafi is a good thing and a credit to Obama's strategy. 
 
 9.28 pm. The anti-tax extremism is really endemic. And the idea that Ronald Reagan would not raise taxes, when he did many times! And I love Huntsman's anti-pledge pledge. So why did he put his hand up last time? Then he wants to nation-build at home and withdraw troops from Afghanistan! Yes, this is a Republican. 
 
 9.25 pm. Some reader reaction: yes, Romney did make the Al Gore "lockbox" argument on social security; yes, Bachmann's hair looks like a flying nun attached to an electric socket; and yes, having this crew on Reagan's stage is not doing them any favors. 
 
 9.14 pm. You cannot really appreciate the difference between Reagan's GOP and this one until you look at immigration. Again, Perry is just off-key again: Obama as a possible "abject liar"? Please. Nice to hear Gingrich expressing some sympathy for long-time illegal immigrants who have worked and lived here for years. Bachmann has no answer to the question of mass deportation. Even when given two opportunities. She really is capable of staring past any actual question that might involve any difficulty. It's wide-eyed evasion. 
 
 Huntsman wins this, though, by embracing Reagan, advocating skills-based immigration and reforming the system of legal immigration, which is onerous, byzantine and hurting the US economy. 
 
 9.12 pm. I might be hallucinating but I think Gingrich just said something positive about Obama's education policy. 
 
 9.10 pm. It sounds to me like Perry is blaming Texas's appalling record in high school education on Mexicans! 
 
 9.08 pm. I loved Huntsman's line about the fortress mentality that is not American. I've been waiting a long time for a credible candidate to say that. He's having a much much better debate than last time around. He and Romney are winning this. Perry is losing this. 
 
 9.04 pm. Even when I think he's a little nuts, I still love Ron Paul. The federal government set the stage for 9/11! Wow. And then the moral hazard issue with FEMA. Gotta love it. Then removing the air conditioning from the Green Zone in Baghdad! Awesome. 
 
 8.57 pm. Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann both oppose mandatory vaccination. I have to say that public health vaccination seems to me to be a completely legitimate role for government. But then Perry boasts of spending billions to tackle cancer. That is a government role but basic health insurance mandates aren't? Perry really is becoming a Pinata. So far, this debate is helping Romney, it seems to me. Perry's appeal wears pretty thin pretty quickly. And Romney's condescending embrace of Perry was superb. As is his formula that Obama is a "nice guy" but doesn't have a clue how to run an economy. I disagree. But it's far, far smarter than the demonization of a president of character and decency. 
 
 8.53 pm. Social security is a "massive lie" and a "Ponzi scheme", according to Perry - and he disses Rove and Cheney as he does so. But the argument about the need to reform it somewhat to help make it viable is a legitimate one - and Romney deftly picks it up. Perry's rhetoric really is an electoral killer. And he is flailing badly. 
 
 8.51 pm. Scanning the audience, I see not a single brown or black face. 
 
 8.42 pm. "Medicare is a mandate." Then we have a defense of the silver dime! I love Ron Paul. Just for pointing out that Reagan initiated the deficits of our time. 
 
 8.37 pm. Perry completely ducks the question of economic inequality, by insisting that all that matters is a booming economy. But the economy, even when booming, has increased inequality to historic levels. It's not clear that Perry sees this looming reality. And it's odd that the question of poverty is addressed by Santorum and others by referring to the welfare rform of the 1990s. A decade and a half ago. 
 
 8.30 pm. Another lie from Bachmann: the notion that government has taken over all of healthcare in this country. But she's right that repealing universal health insurance will be a little more difficult than Romney suggests. Gingrich is also angry, nasty and testy, specifically attacking the media (again). I don't think personal attacks on this president are as effective as Gingrich thinks they are. And his concern for parliamentary procedure, considering his record, is a real piece of chutzpah. 
 
 8.26 pm. Finally, someone points out that in terms of health insurance, Texas is fiftieth of fifty states. And he gets a little tetchy when challenged on it, doesn't he? Huntsman again separates himself from the pack, in tems of polish, substance and clarity. No nerves tonight unlike last time. 
 
 8.24 pm. Perry jumps in to trash the individual mandate for health insurance. Romney makes the obvious case that emergency room care is a horribly inefficient way to have universal healthcare. 
 
 8.20 pm. Ron Paul believes we should never have bailed out the banks or the auto-companies. And then a weid diatribe against drug company lobbyists. And isn't the car industry an actual - and rare - industrial success right now? 
 
 8.19 pm. How big is Michele Bachmann's American flag brooch? 
 
 8.17 pm. A great Huntsman riposte to Romney's proposal of a trade war with China. A very strong start - especially the association with Reagan and the possibility of addressing the Chinese people in Mandarin. That would indeed be something. Totally different from his previous poor performance. 
 
 8.15 pm. So far, the only policies that have been mentioned are tax cuts or tax reform. It's as if government has been forbidden to do anything but lower taxes. 
 
 8.14 pm. Something tells me that Rick Santorum is not the best person to reach out to the Democrats in the Senate. 
 
 8.11 pm. Romney's off to a very polished stance. A nice demurral on "career politicians." And a swift response to Perry's tweak on job creation in Texas versus Massachusetts. 
 
 (Photo: David McNew/Getty.)
– A consensus is taking shape from last night's GOP debate, and Mitt Romney should be pleased. He won or at least held his own in the eyes of most (but certainly not all). Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post pronounces him the winner for his "slow and steady" performance after a somewhat "shaky" start. Rick Perry came out aggressive but "seemed to lose focus" in the second half, while "Romney showed his experience and steadied himself as the proceedings wore on—repeatedly giving answers that sounded reasonable and, dare we say it, presidential." As for Michele Bachmann, she was a "non-entity," which puts her into the "loser" camp," writes Cillizza. It's similar to Andrew Sullivan's assessment at his Daily Beast blog, in which he says Romney "kicked ass," while Perry "proved himself an extreme, inarticulate, incurious W clone" whose "rhetoric was off-key," especially on Social Security. Both Sullivan and Cillizza praise Jon Huntsman's performance: He finally looked like he belonged out there. At the National Journal, Ron Fournier names Romney and Perry as the winners, but wonders about the price. "The testy exchanges allowed Perry to cast himself as a conservative truth-teller and Romney to bill himself as the most electable GOP candidate," he writes. "In doing so, both men exposed each others’ political vulnerabilities and risked alienating independent voters who are looking for more civility in politics." Jonathan Chait at the New Republic is in the minority camp, naming Perry as the sole winner. He "established his alpha male style, and that impression will matter more than any position or statement he’s made."