DES MOINES — With less than two months before the Iowa caucuses, Mitt Romney and Herman Cain lead in the polls here. But neither was at the state Republican Party’s annual dinner Friday, leaving Newt Gingrich to get the best reaction by far. 
 
 The five candidates at the event used 10-minute speeches to make their cases for being the main alternative to the two front-runners. Presenting themselves as either the most electable or authentic anti-establishment conservative, the candidates took only implicit shots at Romney — who’ll be back in the state Monday. 
 
 Text Size - 
 
 + 
 
 reset POLITICO 44 
 
 Before Gingrich, most got polite applause but no loud cheers or standing ovations at the Ronald Reagan Dinner — one of the top events on the local political calendar. From Sen. Chuck Grassley to town mayors, almost every elected Republican official in the state attended, including many of the 99 county chairs whose opinions are respected back home. 
 
 But their reactions changed as the former House speaker ticked through praise for all the people who spoke before him — Ron Paul for pushing to audit the Federal Reserve, Rick Perry for mentoring him on the importance of the 10th amendment, Michele Bachmann for introducing legislation to repeal financial regulatory reform and Rick Santorum for sounding the alarm about “radical Islam.” 
 
 Then, without naming either, he noted the absence of the two candidates who weren’t there. 
 
 “There are a couple that I wish were here tonight, and I would have said nice things, but we’ll skip over that,” he said. 
 
 The knowing crowd roared with laughter. 
 
 Praising ethanol and riffing on his campaign staff’s ties to the state, Gingrich argued that he understands the legislative branch better than anyone and proved in the 1990s that he can get things done. 
 
 Gingrich’s call for seven, three-hour debates with President Barack Obama excited the crowd more than anything all night. He said that he will follow the president around if he does not agree by the time Gingrich wins the nomination. 
 
 “From that date forward, for the rest of the campaign, the White House will be my scheduler,” he said. “And wherever the president appears, I will be four hours later.” 
 
 The reception was in marked contrast to Rick Perry, who’s been hoping to gain back his lead in Iowa. The Texas governor gave a well-crafted speech with lots of rehearsed one-liners, but he didn’t catch fire with the crowd in the dark convention hall. He described a “choice in the race” between the “tinkerers” — “those that support bailouts and oppose major tax reform” — and the “fundamental reformers.” 
 
 “Some want to reform Washington with a pair of tweezers,” he said, doubtlessly referring to Romney. “I’m for bringing a wrecking ball.” 
 
 Perry addressed “Newt” twice during his speech, as if asking for a point of reference on Washington. In criticizing the super committee, he said there have been about 20 committees in the past 30 years to talk about getting the debt under control. “What’s it been, Newt?” he wondered rhetorically. 
 
 Michele Bachmann described herself as the uncompromising “voice in the wilderness” and bragged that commentators called her “extreme” for opposing a debt ceiling increase this summer. She focused her speech on the national debt, which she said is passing a dangerous $15 trillion threshold. 
 
 Pointing to the crisis in Greece, the Minnesota congresswoman said: “Take a really good look in the mirror … because what we just observed is the trailer for where the United States is going.” ||||| Former New Hampshire Gov. John H. Sununu on Sunday defended Mitt Romney's $10,000 bet to Rick Perry as critics pounced on the comments. 
 
 “He used a figure of speech," Sununu said on CNN's "State of the Union," referring to the $10,000 bet Romney waged against Perry in Saturday's Republican presidential debate over whether he had supported a national mandate for health insurance. 
 
 "I think the only thing that will come out of that is to remind people about a $500,000 outstanding bill at Tiffany’s," Sununu added, referring to Newt Gingrich's line of credit to the jewelry company. "Those are not the things you should judge whether somebody should be a president on.” 
 
 Romney's critics have pounced on the comments, saying they cast him as an out-of-touch rich guy. 
 
 Gingrich adviser Bob Walker said the Tiffany's line of credit was "not at all" analogous to Romney's wager, adding that the "quip by Governor Romney last night fits a matter of perception." ||||| The “right-wing social engineering” comment 
 
 Attacking Gingrich for his since-retracted “Meet the Press” statement belittling Paul Ryan’s budget proposal has become de rigueur among his fellow Republican presidential candidates. 
 
 Text Size - 
 
 + 
 
 reset 
 
 Romney’s campaign this week rolled out two surrogate phone calls lashing Gingrich for the anti-Ryan apostasy as evidence the former House speaker cannot be trusted to carry the Republican banner. 
 
 “Gov. Romney is much more disciplined in his approach and much more thoughtful about what he says and how he says them,” Iowa state Rep. Renee Schulte said in a Romney campaign press call Friday. 
 
 The opportunity to nail Gingrich Saturday for his social engineering remark is almost too tempting to pass up. His five rivals would benefit from tethering themselves to a rising star in the party like Ryan, reinforce their fiscal conservative credentials and all without much downside risk. 
 
 Freddie Mac 
 
 The information about Gingrich’s work for Freddie Mac that’s already in the public record makes this is a target-rich environment. 
 
 Gingrich insists he never lobbied for the mortgage giant. He and his companies earned millions working, he says, as a highly paid adviser offering historical advice. 
 
 Whatever role he played, Gingrich has considerable exposure. And his opponents have considerable motive to attack him. 
 
 Romney, without being specific, has repeatedly charged that Gingrich has spent his entire life working in Washington — so a Freddie Mac hit on Gingrich would be a two-fer. 
 
 Bachmann also has railed against “crony capitalism” in previous debates. 
 
 Perry bemoans the clubby insider nature of Washington, threatening to “blow up” the influence industry in which Gingrich enriched himself. 
 
 What better way to highlight those criticisms than to attach them to the front-runner through the Freddie Mac connection? 
 
 Immigration 
 
 The issue of illegal immigration was the root of Romney’s first attack on Perry, and the Texas governor’s inability to ably respond played a significant role in his demise. 
 
 Gingrich is certain to avoid the performance errors that doomed the Texas governor, but his position that undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in the country legally without a path to citizenship is anathema to immigration hard-liners like Bachmann and Santorum, and Romney is practiced in leveraging the issue to his advantage. 
 
 The trick will be for candidates to draw blood from Gingrich without appearing, to use Perry’s loaded term, heartless. At the foreign policy debate Nov. 22, Gingrich deftly batted away charges that his plan amounts to amnesty, without significant pushback. 
 
 Recent Iowa polls show that, while likely caucus-goers don’t necessarily agree with Gingrich’s more moderate immigration position, the issue is far less important than the economy on their list of concerns. ||||| Newt Gingrich, prepare to be the piñata. 
 
 Like Rick Perry, whose supercharged entry into the race led his rivals to focus their debate attacks on him in September, Gingrich will get pummeled from all sides in Saturday’s ABC/Republican Party of Iowa debate. 
 
 Text Size - 
 
 + 
 
 reset 
 
 As the undisputed front-runner everywhere except New Hampshire — and the clock winding down toward the Jan. 3 caucuses — Gingrich won’t have it as easy as in the previous debates. 
 
 In part because he trailed so far behind in the polls — and because he expertly played the role of media scold, chastising moderators for sowing disagreement among the candidates — Gingrich has so far faced almost no debate scrutiny from his GOP rivals. 
 
 That now figures to change. 
 
 The former House speaker has serious vulnerabilities, and his opponents have good cause to exploit them. The question is, ‘Which aspects of his record will the five other Republican candidates choose to zero in on?’ 
 
 Here are seven attacks to watch for from Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum: 
 
 Gingrich’s three marriages 
 
 This is the elephant on the stage, the issue that will have to be handled with utmost delicacy. 
 
 No available public polling suggests Gingrich’s two failed marriages and reported infidelity are a big problem for him yet, but the expectation is that it will be — most recently it became the target of a slick new Web video circulated Thursday by a Sioux City evangelical minister. 
 
 While no candidate has been willing to be the first to make a direct attack on the marriage issue, Romney’s team has abandoned subtlety in pushing the former Massachusetts governor’s family-man status. 
 
 Romney in recent campaign stops has been touting his 42-year marriage. His wife, Ann, on Friday appeared at a “women for Mitt” event. The campaign is airing a new TV ad heavy on decades-old home videos. 
 
 Don’t expect Romney to make a direct attack on Gingrich’s personal life Saturday — he told the Des Moines Register Friday, “I’m not making that an issue.” 
 
 But the other five candidates onstage with Gingrich — all of whom have been married only once — might have different designs. If any of them will attack him, it likely will be a candidate desperate to make inroads with Iowa’s social conservatives and with little to lose. The hopeful who best fits the description is Rick Santorum, who has struggled to gain traction despite stumping the hardest in Iowa — but don’t rule out a punch from Perry, who is rebranding himself as a more overtly Christian conservative candidate. ||||| Back to previous page 
 
 6 candidates set off on Iowa sprint as caucuses’ outcome remains uncertain 
 
 DES MOINES — One week before Republican voters begin selecting a presidential nominee, the race in Iowa is as muddled as any in recent times as six candidates set off on a sprint to win a contest that leading strategists here say is up for grabs. 
 
 Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, who only a few weeks ago had a clear lead, appears to have lost significant ground under an onslaught of negative advertisements. One beneficiary may be former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who had been making only sporadic appearances in Iowa but this week begins a concerted late push, with operatives in the state suggesting he might actually win. 
 
 Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.), whose campaign organization remains strong, has run into controversies over racially charged writings, while three second-tier candidates are trying to seize momentum. One of them, former senator Rick Santorum (Pa.), got the backing of two leading conservatives last week and is seen by strategists as beginning to make a move, although the question is how significant it might be. 
 
 “I’ve never seen it this fluid, this late in the process, with this many candidates,” Iowa GOP Chairman Matt Strawn said. “In the past, maybe it’s been down to a binary choice of a couple of candidates, but the fact that half of Iowans are telling pollsters they could change their minds is unprecedented.” 
 
 Santorum was the only candidate in the state Monday. He went bird hunting with Iowa conservatives, including Rep. Steve King, whose endorsement most candidates are aggressively seeking. King said after the hunt with Santorum that he remains undecided. 
 
 “Our campaign is clearly the one that is rising right now and has the momentum,” Santorum, who was wearing bright-orange hunting gear said. “No votes have been cast, and I feel very, very good that all the work that we’ve done, all the groundwork we’re doing, the foundation we’ve laid is coming and working just perfectly.” 
 
 The other candidates are set to return Tuesday for their final pushes after a weekend break for the Christmas holiday. In the meantime, Romney and Texas Gov. Rick Perry launched television advertisements Monday that seemed designed to appeal to tea party activists. Romney focused on cutting government spending while Perry pumped his proposal to turn Congress into a part-time institution. 
 
 Gingrich, who is trying to regain some of the enthusiasm that lifted his candidacy early in the month, began to draw fresh contrasts with Romney over his economic policy and avowed conservatism. In a statement, the Gingrich campaign asked: “Can we trust a Massachusetts Moderate to enact a conservative agenda?” 
 
 Gingrich last week acknowledged that the negative ads — aired by a political action committee financed by Romney allies as well as Paul’s and Perry’s campaigns — had hurt him here and that he would have to fight back more aggressively. Gingrich plans to contrast his tax proposals with Romney’s, which his campaign will describe as “timid” and “moderate,” through conservative surrogates as well as the candidate himself on a 44-stop bus tour, according to a senior campaign official. 
 
 But some Republican operatives question whether it is too late for Gingrich to regain his standing. 
 
 “These negative ads that are running against him are effective,” Iowa strategist Craig Robinson said. “There’s not going to be any singular moment where he can regain the footing. Nothing will allow him to pull the break in these polls.” 
 
 Romney will touch down in the Hawkeye State on Tuesday afternoon to deliver a speech in Davenport. He will then embark on a three-day bus tour through communities where he performed well in the 2008 caucuses. Romney also will employ a series of surrogates, including New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Sen. John Thune (S.D.), to help blanket the state with his message. 
 
 Perry and Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.), who promised to hit all 99 counties in the final weeks, will lead their own bus tours Tuesday. 
 
 All other candidates concede that Paul has a strong organization but contend that there may be a ceiling to his support. The controversy over newsletters produced in the early 1990s, in between his stints as a member of Congress, threatens to disrupt his message. Written in the early 1990s, the newsletters, circulated in libertarian circles, included highly insensitive writings about racial issues and black leaders and activists. 
 
 Paul has disavowed the writings and said he never read them until years later. But he is likely to face questions when he returns here. 
 
 The contest has lacked the intensity of past Iowa campaigns, with the leading candidates making vastly fewer visits. But this week marks a newly frenetic pace of retail campaigning, with Republican voters giving the candidates a final look before heading into the Jan. 3 precinct caucuses. 
 
 “All those undecided voters we’ve been talking about for months will firm up,” said Iowa GOP operative Tim Albrecht. “All the candidates are doing the right things, and that is they’re hopping on a bus and making the final pitch to Iowans. There’s no better way to secure support for the caucuses than to look an Iowan in the eye and ask for it.” 
 
 GOP leaders in some of the state’s biggest Republican strongholds described an unusual state of uncertainty, with no clear favorite heading into the caucuses. They said anecdotal evidence suggests that after visiting all 99 counties, many of them multiple times, Santorum’s hard work may finally be paying off with a late surge. But he has yet to make a sizable leap in public polling. 
 
 “He’s working very hard to drive his turnout up, and he’s made a very favorable impression on people,” said Bob Anderson, chairman of the Johnson County Republican Party, who noted an uptick in Romney’s support as well. 
 
 The Tuesday evening caucuses, held in 1,774 precincts, will be in part a battle of turnout. GOP officials estimated that turnout could be as high or higher than in 2008, when a record 119,118 Iowa Republicans participated. 
 
 Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee won the 2008 caucuses with 34 percent of the vote, but Iowa strategists believe that this time, with so many candidates bunched near the top, a candidate could win with a smaller plurality. The lowest winning percentage was Robert J. Dole’s 26 percent in 1996. 
 
 “We’re expecting a good turnout,” said Brian Rosener, chairman of the Woodbury County Republican Party. He added that his office has received “a lot of calls from people who haven’t done it before asking what do I do, where do I go, how does it work, and even some Democrats calling in to say they’re switching parties.” ||||| Rick Perry, in happier days. (Associated Press) 
 
 Rick Perry is not running for a fourth term as governor of Texas. 
 
 He announced this news Monday, showed a video of his accomplishments as governor, quoted Ecclesiastes, and sampled all the trademark Rick Perry behaviors we have come to know and love (well, short of forcing everyone to pray for rain, then dragging them into a special session to pass anti-abortion legislation the people of Texas did not want). 
 
 The looming end of his term (just 18 months away) frees his schedule up considerably. It gives him time to do such exciting things as learn the names of all the departments of government that he disapproves of, drive a car threateningly past Ben Bernanke’s house late at night, and serenade strangers in the restroom with “I’ve Been Working on the Railroad,” as, apparently, is his wont. 
 
 And, of course, think about a presidential run in 2016. 
 
 So-called insiders are already pointing out why it would be a bad idea for him to run. They say reasonable-sounding things, like, “Are you kidding me? Rick Perry?” 
 
 Sure, he fizzled in 2012, a year when a piece of damp cardboard led the field for a full 6 weeks after someone pointed out it was not Mitt Romney. So how could he expect to prevail against people such as Chris Christie and Marco Rubio, who not only are actual live humans but also possess the significant advantages of not being Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain or The Individual Under Donald Trump’s Hair? He couldn’t beat Rick Santorum, and you couldn’t even Google Rick Santorum! 
 
 But these so-called insiders are full of sour grapes. Two years is plenty of time to figure out things like: “When is election day?” “What is foreign policy?” “Should you put aviation assets in the ground?” and “How do you make an attack on an opponent during a debate that sounds marginally more threatening than being savaged by a drunk teddy bear?” (“Is it the Mitt Romney that was on the side of — against the Second Amendment before he was for the Second Amendment? Was it — was before — he was before the social programs from the standpoint of — he was for standing up for Roe v. Wade before he was against first — Roe v. Wade?”) 
 
 But forget the naysayers. 
 
 He still might not be able to alter the past, or the name of his ranch, and he may not be able to evolve any of his positions, since he doesn’t believe in evolution (“It’s a theory that’s out there,” he said in 2011), but — well, my first reason for a second Perry campaign is also the simplest: How much worse could it possibly be? 
 
 He’s already shouted “Live free or die! Victory or death! Bring it!” in a slurred, bizarre fashion at a New Hampshire dinner. He’s already said “Oops!” in a major national debate. He’s done everything short of pulling an Anthony Weiner on Twitter, and — if New York polls are any indication — that’s not something the voters of America are bothered by. 
 
 This brings me to my second reason: second chances. We are, apparently, very much fans of second chances these days. Eliot Spitzer is running for comptroller in New York City. Anthony Weiner is running for mayor — and leading, even though we have all seen his lurking trouser weasel. Mark Sanford is once more a member of Congress. Comebacks are everywhere, like kudzu or 2016 speculation. 
 
 Sure, when people talk about second chances, they usually mean comebacks after some sort of sexual misconduct. Have an affair? Get back in that political saddle and ride away! We don’t care what you do in the bedroom, unless the bedroom is where you take in-kind bribes from sinister corporations. Sometimes not even then. Of course there are second acts in American lives. F. Scott Fitzgerald had too much to drink and didn’t know what he was talking about. If Rick Perry trains hard, running up flights of stairs while reciting the names of government departments, familiarizing himself with human words and behaviors, maybe he can do for people who have said idiotic things on the national stage what Mark Sanford has done for people who are, well, Mark Sanford. This is America, where you can put anything in your mouth except your foot. And maybe even that. 
 
 I can’t remember the third reason. ||||| 10.54 pm. Tapper is playing up the $10,000 Romney bet - and I suspect he's right to. It leapt out at me, along with the "Newt Romney" line from Bachmann. Other than that, Newt wins; Romney loses; Paul rises. Have yourself a shot. I sure will. 
 
 10.50 pm. So this is the end? Or not the end? Does Sawyer get to talk some more? That last round was congenial, like a group hug on American Idol. I think both Gingrich and Paul emerged the strongest frm this debate, while Romney failed to do or say anything to change the dynamic of his listless campaign. So ... Gingrich could well win Iowa. I don't see the trajectory changing any tonight. 
 
 10.48 pm. Newt: "If we do survive ..." Wow. Does Gingrich really believe that the US faces an existential threat from Iran? Or is he running for the Likud party? 
 
 10.43 pm. Politifact has judged Newt Gingrich's statement that he has never supported cap and trade as a lie. Meanwhile, I loved this tweet: 
 
 Sometimes I think Rick Perry gets halfway through an answer and sees a Frisbee. 
 
 10.38 pm. A reader writes: 
 
 What it must feel like to be a lifelong Republican at this point? My girlfriend's grandma is watching, and you know what she keeps saying? "You go, Newt! Tell the truth! Someone needs to!" with the utmost excitement. 
 
 Another writes: 
 
 I've been laid off since 2009, but luckily my wife is gainfully employed as a university librarian. We have 2 kids and have had to scrape by, figuring out how to feed them the last week of each month. It's clear to me, more than ever, these candidates are very out of touch with the economic pain put here. They haven't had to feel any pain or sacrifice. And, we're the lucky ones. We have a house. These clowns have no idea what it's like to feel the white-hot shame of selling family heirlooms or borrowing from friends. I have no real representation, and don't really see it coming. 
 
 10.34 pm. Sawyer tells us she has a cold and what she did today. Ron Paul runs with it. A great digression that will send a thrill up the libertarian leg - and firm up his support among the young, where the oldest candidate is strongest. Perry seems looser and more relaxed, if just as clueless. 
 
 10.31 pm. Back to healthcare mandates, and Newt Romney's longtime support for them. Romney does okay, but his position is still excruciating. Newt ducks, then we get a classic: we need to "fundamentally re-think the entire health system." 
 
 10.23 pm. Which of these candidates are struggling in the recession? Seriously? Perry scores with a truthful account of his modest upbringing. Romney tackles a no-win question rather well. Ron Paul charms as usual, at least he does me. Then we get another Fed riff. 
 
 10.21 pm. A reader writes: 
 
 Maybe it's just that I'm waxing sentimental because I made my drinking game every time Sawyer speaks (and she won't shut up so I'm about 5 minutes from a crying jag. I kid I kid.) but can you imagine what it must feel like to be a Republican - a seriously life long and earnest Republican - right now? Watching this. 
 
 
 
 This is it. That is it. That's all that showed up. 
 
 
 
 Merry Christmas GOP. 
 
 10.17 pm. This has so far been a feisty debate and I'm pretty sure Diane Sawyer is hoping for a lift in Iowa. I mean she is running, isn't she? It feels like she's spoken more than most of the candidates. 
 
 10.13 pm. Santorum backs Romney: truth with "prudence." Then he says we didn't have allies against the Soviet Union! Then Santorum says that the entire West Bank is Israeli. Perry now accuses the president of treason, and responsible for all the woes in the Middle East. The crowd roars. Yes, the one abiding, unifying passion: contempt for the president. 
 
 10.05 pm. Ron Paul sums Gingrich up: "stirring up trouble." Gingrich doubles down with the full AIPAC, and seems utterly indifferent to diplomacy. Stephanopoulos doesn't note how Gingrich's one-state solution differs from every single administration since 1967. But his total identification with Israel against Palestinians will work very well with the Christianists - even if it wrecks US diplomacy. Romney presses Gingrich on being a bomb-thrower. Newt invokes Reagan's Evil Empire. This is a win for Gingrich. But it reminds us how terrifying it would be to have Gingrich with his finger on the button. 
 
 10.04 pm. Nothing interesting on immigration, despite Sawyer's endless blather. 
 
 10.01 pm. Sawyer is making Charlie Rose seem brusque. 
 
 9.57 pm. Newt, for a change, doesn't get pissy, and just all but pleads forgiveness. Now Sawyer is droning on and on again, the verbal diarrhea now piling up and up. She's still talking? That was a 3 minute question. 
 
 9.55 pm. Josh Romney has those dilated Puss In Boots eyes as he looks at his dad. 
 
 9.53 pm. Ron Paul says character doesn't have to be talked about. It should show through anybody's life. I love the guy. Then he pivots to the salient oath: the oath of office. A great little Ron Paul riff. 
 
 9.51 pm. Perry says he made a vow to God when he married. He's up-Godding Newt. It's really on now. Perry: "If you would cheat on your wife, why wouldn't you cheat on anybody else?" Ouch. Santorum says "trust is everything" and doesn't have to look at Newt Romney. 
 
 9.49 pm. Some reader notes. One writes: 
 
 Since when did Mormons become cool with gambling? 
 
 Another: 
 
 Rick Santorum: "I believe in bottom up." Quoted without comment. 
 
 Another: 
 
 Is Diane Sawyer high? 
 
 9.46 pm. So far, I'm surprised by Gingrich's aggression - being the front-runner seems to make him less restrained; by Bachmann's very smart "Newt Romney" line; by Newt's ad hominem about Romney's career out of public office; and Romney offering a $10,000 bet over a small debating point. Now we're getting instant replays! 
 
 9.45 pm. Can someone tell Sawyer we are not in the slightest bit interested in her pointless, droning blather? 
 
 9.41 pm. Newt Romney just slapped Bachmann down rather hilariously, if ineffectively. The dynamic is Santorum, Bachmann and Perry versus Newt Romney. And Ron Paul is, well, Ron Paul. 
 
 9.39 pm. Romney offers a $10,000 bet to Perry. I wonder how many voters in Iowa have a spare $10,000 to settle an argument. That from a man who only has $100 bills in his pocket. That was a big booboo. 
 
 9.38 pm. Newt rightly reminds us that Obama's healthcare proposal is considerably to the right of Clintoncare in the 1990s. 
 
 9.35 pm. Romney intends to go after Obama for cutting Medicare. Yep: the GOP is complaining at the tiniest cut in Medicare from Obama, but favors the Ryan plan. Perry and Bachmann focus on the individual mandate. 
 
 9.32 pm. Gingrich gets a little pissy once Bachmann exposes his long-held support for an individual mandate. And Bachmann comes back against "Newt Romney" again. From her position in the polls, this is exactly the right tactic. A litle desperate. But effective. 
 
 9.31 pm. Bachmann targets Newt-Romney as one liberal blob. Very effective riff, I'd say. The best parry I've ever heard from her. 
 
 9.27 pm. Ron Paul plays the Freddie Mac card hard against Gingrich. Accuses Newt of indirectly taking tax payer's money! Gingrich now says he offered "strategic advice" to Freddie Mac. He's no longer a "historian". Bachmann calls Newt a K Street insider. He sure is. 
 
 9.24 pm. Newt kills off Mitt with one swipe: telling him that the only reason he hasn't been a career politician is because he lost to Ted Kennedy. Maybe he's been reading the Dish. Gingrich goes after Romney with the passion and energy of an underdog, not a front-runner. He's on fire. I think the dig about Newt's trip to the moon probably set him off. 
 
 9.21 pm. Ron Paul contrasts the cost of the Baghdad embassy with the payroll tax cut. Then Romney accuses Barack Obama of wanting to kill off the opportunity society - and almost has a Perry moment when asked to say where he differed with Newt Gingrich. 
 
 9.19 pm. Bad Romney joke. Same Romney blah. 
 
 9.17 pm. Bachmann opposes the payroll tax cut in the first place and its extension now, as well. 
 
 9.16 pm. Sorry to keep hammering on this, but why does Diane Sawyer talk so much and treat us and the candidates as if we were eight years old? 
 
 9.07 pm. Gingrich argues for more tax cutting and not regulating the private sector as his distinctive policy for cutting unemployment. Surprise! What will they shock us with next? Mitt has seven - count them, seven - ways. I have forgotten them already. Ron Paul argues for shock therapy: cutting $1 trillion in a year. We've heard all this before. Their prescriptions are the same ones we had under George W Bush for eight years. Sawyer is deeply irritating; is there something abou network news that turns people into pious condescenders and pablum peddlers? Bachmann's spiel is pretty close to her Bad Lip Reading special. Santorum argues for a manufacturing industrial policy. As to the regulations argument, go read David Brooks. 
 
 9.05 pm. When will Diane Sawyer shut up? 
 
 9.02 pm. Another reality show intro. But some things don't change: it's snowing in Iowa. 
 
 (Photo: Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images) ||||| 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.
– Rick Perry today weighed in on last night's big debate moment—the $10,000 bet. "I was taken a little aback" by Mitt Romney's wager, Perry said on Fox News Sunday, Politico reports. "Driving out to the station this morning I'm pretty sure I didn’t drive by a house that anyone in Iowa would think a $10,000 bet was possible. It was a little out of touch with the normal Iowa citizen." (Perry also addressed a recent gaffe of his own, explaining, "I don’t have memorized all of the Supreme Court judges," but added that Americans "aren’t looking for a robot that can spit out the name of every Supreme Court justice … They're looking for somebody who's got values.") Elsewhere on the Sunday dial: Former New Hampshire Gov. John H. Sununu, at least, was on Romney's side when it came to the aforementioned bet. "He used a figure of speech," Sununu said on State of the Union. "I think the only thing that will come out of that is to remind people about a $500,000 outstanding bill at Tiffany’s." Speaking of Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann slammed him on Face the Nation. "His offices are on the Rodeo Drive of Washington called K Street. He’s the king of K Street. So for a person who’s been influence peddling for over 30 years in Washington DC, to think that Newt Gingrich is somehow an outsider when he is the consummate establishment insider, he’s the big government candidate just like Mitt Romney is the big government candidate, that’s not what we want in our nominee." Ron Paul piled on Gingrich too, saying the former House Speaker may not be legally obligated to pay back his Freddie Mac consulting fees, but he is "morally" obligated to do so. Also while on Meet the Press, Paul said he's not ruling out a third-party run. Click to see what the consequences of such a run might be. Sen. Lindsey Graham was one who didn't slam Gingrich on Meet the Press. "He's been out of government for a long time; he's matured as a person. He's reattached himself to his faith," said Graham, who didn't endorse Gingrich but said he would support him if he wins the nomination. Iowa's governor said Mitt Romney will never win the state's primary with his cautious approach. "I think he's starting to understand that he's going to have to get much more aggressive; he's going to have to spend more time here," Gov. Terry Branstad said on Meet the Press.