The former House speaker and newly minted GOP front-runner had a strong debate night Tuesday -- but might have damaged his candidacy with immigration comments 
 
 
 
 
 
 Tuesday night's CNN national-security debate in Washington was a meaty affair featuring candidates actually making arguments to defend differing positions -- imagine that. The forum proved a double-edged sword for Newt Gingrich, the newly anointed front-runner of the moment: As he usually has in debates, he turned in a strong performance. But he also found himself defending a position on immigration that's at odds with the Republican base -- and that could come back to haunt him politically. 
 
 
 
 A few takeaways from the pre-Thanksgiving face-off: 
 
 
 
 
 
 1. A "heartless" moment for Gingrich? The former House speaker found himself mounting a forceful argument for comprehensive immigration reform, including legalization for some illegal immigrants, particularly those brought to the U.S. as children. When Texas Gov. Rick Perry defended that same position in an earlier debate -- saying to those who would punish such children, "I don't think you have a heart" -- it went over like a lead zeppelin with conservatives, many of whom haven't given him a second look ever since. Gingrich took a perilously similar line: "I don't see how the party that says it's the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration family which destroys families that have been here a quarter century. And I'm prepared to take the heat for saying, let's be humane in enforcing the law, without giving them citizenship, but by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families." 
 
 
 
 
 
 As Michele Bachmann gingerly pointed out, that's a position many on the right consider tantamount to amnesty. Perry jumped on board with Gingrich's stance, while Mitt Romney disagreed, saying what's needed is "turning off the magnets of amnesty." Gingrich has a history of moderation on immigration and outreach to Hispanic voters -- he voted for Reagan's amnesty bill in the 1980s -- a legacy that could serve him well in a general election, but is likely to become an obstacle to getting to the general election first. As Republican primary voters give Gingrich a closer look, his willingness to stake our unpopular positions, then defend them with his usual indignant certitude, could be a problem. 
 
 
 
 
 
 2. Nonetheless, a good night for Newt. Judging from the polls, a lot of Republican voters tuned into the debate looking to pin their hopes on the surging Gingrich, and he gave them a lot to like, with snappy comebacks and ferocious defenses of tough security positions. At the very beginning of the debate, he argued in favor of the Patriot Act against Ron Paul's civil libertarianism: "I don't want a law that says after we lose a major American city, we're sure going to come and find you," he said. "I want a law that says, you try to take out an American city, we're going to stop you." Gingrich's facility for argument was on ample display, and he even skipped the media-bashing that's such a tried and true weapon in his debate arsenal. 
 
 
 
 
 
 It wasn't all smooth sailing: Gingrich jumped into a dispute about Afghanistan troop levels only to ignore the question and wander off topic, saying, "I'm a little confused about what exactly we're currently debating." And his overall performance could well end up overshadowed by his immigration heresy. Before the debate had even ended, Bachmann's campaign was out with an email headlined, "Newt Gingrich's Open Door to Illegal Immigrant Amnesty" -- surely not the last where that came from. 
 
 
 
 
 
 3. The Huntsman-Paul axis. Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman found himself on the same side as Texas Rep. Ron Paul on a number of issues, from civil liberties (they are for them) to keeping lots of troops in Afghanistan (they are against that). On the former, Paul responded to Gingrich by saying, "This is like saying that we need a policeman in every house, a camera in every house because we want to prevent child-beating and wife-beating. You can prevent crimes by becoming a police state." On Afghanistan, Huntsman had a spirited exchange with Romney, who said commanders on the ground should dictate troop levels: "At the end of the day, the president of the United States is commander-in-chief. Commander in chief. Of course you're going to listen to the generals. But I also remember when people listened to the generals in 1967, and we had a certain course of action in South Asia that didn't serve our interests very well." Huntsman and Paul similarly echoed each other on cutting defense spending. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Huntsman had a good debate, showing off his foreign-affairs expertise, turning repeatedly to the economy as a national security issue and getting a lot of airtime. But in a party where Paul is clearly an outlier, Huntsman's alignment with the Texan might not be a winner. 
 
 
 
 
 
 4. Romney: still untouched. It wasn't a standout night for the former Massachusetts governor, who made his usual points in his usual matter-of-fact way. He seemed surprised when Huntsman had a good comeback to his commanders-on-the-ground line, and faded to the background for many of the debate's more substantive exchanges. Romney came alive at the end with a good argument against Perry's proposal for a no-fly zone over Syria, saying, "They have 5,000 tanks in Syria. A no-fly zone wouldn't be the right military action -- maybe a no-drive zone. This is a nation which is not bombing its people." 
 
 
 
 
 
 But it was a good night for Romney in the sense that the other candidates, as they so often have in the past, again refrained from taking him on. This time it was Perry who notably took a pass: "Here we go again, Mitt. You and I standing by each other again and you used the words about the magnets," Perry began in response to Romney's argument about immigration amnesty. But the expected segue into Perry's previously deployed attack line, about the illegal immigrants once hired to work on Romney's property, never came. 
 
 
 
 
 
 5. Herman Cain: still flailing. The businessman continues to prove his inability to get through the most basic exchange about foreign policy. He said he would orient the Transportation Security Administration toward "targeted identification," but then couldn't define what that meant. Asked if he would support an Israeli attack on Iran, he fell back on his usual strategy of a heavily qualified, lean-on-advisers answer that frequently and perplexingly mentioned the "mountainous terrain" in Iran, as if that topographical factoid were enough to make him knowledgeable. And to add to the confusion, he called Wolf Blitzer "Blitz." 
 
 
 
 
 
 6. Bachmann, Perry, Santorum: running out of time to make a splash. Bachmann had another good debate -- the congresswoman, who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, is well versed in foreign policy, confounding those who would dismiss her as a lightweight. She called Perry "highly naive" for wanting to cut off aid to Pakistan, which she termed "too nuclear to fail," and made a fluent defense of realism in the face of ideological glibness. And Bachmann cautiously but successfully drew Gingrich into the immigration dialogue that could prove the night's most significant exchange politically. Perry, for his part, didn't fall on his face and had a good command of detail. Santorum, as usual, knew his stuff and wanted to make sure you noticed (though he also said, "Africa was a country on the brink"). 
 
 
 
 
 
 But all three candidates, who are now the field's bottom-feeders, need a breakout moment at this point to reignite -- or, in Santorum's case, ignite for the first time -- their prospects among Republican primary voters. And the bottom line was, none of them got it. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Image credit: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst ||||| Candidates before a Republican presidential debate in Washington, Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2011 / Evan Vucci 
 
 CNN, in conjunction with the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation, sponsored the second debate on foreign policy in ten days. Here's our take on the winners and losers from Tuesday night. 
 
 WINNERS: 
 
 Newt Gingrich 
 
 Success begets success. Newt has done well in past debates and it has helped him in the polls. With his polling success, moderators gave him more airtime, which allowed the one-time afterthought and current front-runner to show off his debating skills. He took a risk by going against conservative Republican orthodoxy on immigration, and that could backfire, but overall Gingrich showed that he has been thinking about these issues for decades. And since it was a debate focused on foreign policy, no one asked him about his relationship with mortgage giant Freddie Mac and the $1.6 million he earned, which also helped the former House speaker. 
 
 Jon Huntsman 
 
 As the former ambassador to both China and Singapore, Tuesday's national security debate was Jon Huntsman's moment to shine. And for the most part, he succeeded: Huntsman, who touted throughout the debate his experience living abroad, presented clear policy positions on Pakistan and Afghanistan - at one point getting into a heated debate with Mitt Romney over the Afghan troop drawdown ?- and even managed to bring the conversation back around to the American economy. Perhaps for the first time in the campaign, the former Utah governor was able to set himself apart from the rest of the GOP crowd. 
 
 Ron Paul 
 
 This was the Texas lawmaker's strongest debate, getting lots of airtime and challenging many of his rivals about U.S. foreign policy. His views are not in the mainstream of Republican orthodoxy, but he is consistent in his beliefs and not afraid to tell voters what he really thinks. His fundraising numbers could go up in the short-term, based on his debate performance Tuesday night, even if long-term it may be hard for him to broaden his support. 
 
 Michele Bachmann 
 
 Despite having largely been written off as a major player in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, Rep. Michele Bachmann delivered a strong performance in Tuesday's debate, demonstrating her confidence discussing policy issues, and taking her competitors to task when they faltered. In a heated exchange with Rick Perry over providing aid to Pakistan, the Minnesota lawmaker blasted the Texas governor for what she described as his "highly na?ve" take on the issue; later, she sparred with Newt Gingrich for his stance on immigration. Whether or not Bachmann's performance was strong enough to get her back in the game remains to be seen - but she certainly earned more screen time than in recent debates. 
 
 Mitt Romney 
 
 Romney had one of his worst performances of the 11 debates so far, but he still managed to do fairly well. Romney is a front-runner for a reason: he has been running for president for five years and that practice has paid off for the former Massachusetts governor. Romney skillfully turned questions about foreign policy into answers about domestic issues where he was able to contrast his own positions with those of President Obama, cementing the idea that this race is going to come down to Romney and one other candidate. 
 
 Rick Santorum 
 
 Rick Santorum is still widely considered a long-shot candidate, but he earned his fair share of airtime in Tuesday's debate. And while the former Pennsylvania senator may not have said much to change how America feels about him - he endorsed racial profiling Muslims and mistakenly referred to Africa as a country - he made his best effort to make his way back onto the public's radar. 
 
 LOSERS 
 
 Herman Cain 
 
 Herman Cain did not have the standout moment he needed to prove to voters he has a command of foreign policy. After surging in the polls, Cain's campaign has lost momentum in recent days, most notably after stumbling over a question regarding Libya. The only memorable moment from Cain in this debate came when he flubbed debate moderator Wolf Blitzer's name, calling the CNN anchor "Blitz." 
 
 Rick Perry 
 
 The Texas governor took some bold positions during this debate, but his policy stances were vigorously challenged by his colleagues. Perry almost seemed to immediately backtrack on the tough stance he took against foreign aid to Pakistan after Michele Bachmann called his position "naive." Perry was also on the defense when other candidates -- Mitt Romney, Herman Cain and Ron Paul -- said they disagreed with Perry's assertion that the U.S. should consider a no-fly zone over Syria. ||||| Another day, another Republican presidential debate. We live-blogged the whole thing but also took note of a few of the night’s winners and, yes, losers. 
 
 Your Browser DoesNot Support IFrames. 
 
 Our thoughts are below. Have your own winners and losers? The comments section awaits. 
 
 WINNERS 
 
 * Newt Gingrich: The former House Speaker didn’t do anything different in this debate than he had in any of the hundreds — we are exaggerating, but only slightly — that preceded it. The difference? His rise to the top of the polls afforded him lots more time to speak. And that’s good for Gingrich, who is a skilled debater. If you went into the debate undecided on Gingrich, you likely came out leaning toward him. One potential trouble spot: Gingrich’s refusal to back away from his belief that we shouldn’t throw out all 11 million people here illegally could come back to bite him in a party that is vehemently opposed to anything that looks or sounds like amnesty. 
 
 * Jon Huntsman: Given the national security/foreign policy focus of this debate, it was one where the former Utah governor had to do well. And, by and large, he did. Huntsman is still learning the game of presidential politics — he veers off message occasionally — but he gave off an overall image of competency and reasonableness. Combine tonight’s performance with the $1.5 million the pro-Huntsman super PAC is currently spending in New Hampshire and now must be the time the governor makes his move in the state. If his numbers don’t start ticking up soon, it’s time to start looking at 2016. 
 
 * Mitt Romney: It was far from Romney’s most commanding performance, but the former Massachusetts governor — yet again — avoided any sort of gang tackle from his rivals. Romney seemed content to not force the issue but when he got his questions he was solid (as usual) in answering them. Romney also made a point to ding Gingrich on his immigration answer; if Newt stays in the top tier there will be lots more where that came from. 
 
 * Oreos: Simply put, the world’s greatest cookie. And, yes, we did eat 10 of them during the course of the debate. (Don’t tell Mrs. Fix.) 
 
 LOSERS 
 
 * Herman Cain: The former Godfather’s Pizza CEO seemed lost for much of tonight’s debate. Obviously domestic policy — “9-9-9”! — is his strong suit but Cain also needed to demonstrate a firmer grasp on the foreign policy front in order to be taken seriously as a contender for the Republican nomination. The Cain slide appears to be well under way — if new polling is to be trusted — and he did nothing to arrest it tonight. 
 
 * Ron Paul: We wondered aloud earlier today if the Texas Congressman might temper some of his national security/foreign policy views in an attempt to court the more mainstream part of the GOP. Nope! Paul’s views on domestic policy are largely in line with the rest of the candidates running for the Republican presidential nomination but on foreign policy he is an outlier. It showed tonight as Paul said we should leave Israel to fend for itself, called for disentangling ourselves from Afghanistan and even for an end to the war on drugs. Paul’s base undoubtedly ate up every word. But, tonight’s debate was a case study in just how hard it will be for Paul to be a genuine contender for the nomination. 
 
 * Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP): Gingrich said an EMP was the biggest threat to the country that no one was talking about. Doing a little reading on it, we can confirm it’s scary stuff. Heck, it stopped the machines in “The Matrix”. And it would apparently make Twitter inoperable. We shudder to think. 
 
 Read more at PostPolitics.com 
 
 Fact-checking the GOP national security debate 
 
 GOP rivals spar on national security 
 
 Have the GOP debates jumped the shark? ||||| This year, the primary debates have been more important in shaping the race than they have been in past elections, The Wall Street Journal's Fred Barnes writes. Speeches, policy papers, endorsements have been ignored, Barnes writes, but the six debates since May have drawn huge audiences -- 6 million TV viewers for the Fox News debate last month, plus 6 million more online. That means a lot of people will be paying attention to tonight's debate at Dartmouth in New Hampshire, which will offer a struggling Rick Perry a chance to redeem himself and Herman Cain a chance to prove he's not a novelty act. We're liveblogging the event below. 
 
 The Wall Street Journal's Jonathan Weisman reports that the format -- a roundtable led by Charlie Rose and focused on economic issues -- will encourage a deeper look at the details of each candidate's policy proposals. They should be asked how they'll fix the housing market, and what they think about Occupy Wall Street, he writes. Here are some of the things we'll be watching for: 
 
 Can Cain defend his 9-9-9 plan? Cain has a pretty radical plan to overhaul the tax code, and so far, he's deflected questions that it would put a much bigger burden on poor people and increase the deficit. Cain should be pushed to talk about how his plan would really affect the country. 
 
 Can Perry explain how he'd grow jobs nationwide? Perry has a strong jobs record in Texas, but his campaign hasn't yet released an economic plan for how he'd replicate that success for the whole country. 
 
 Will Perry be battered or ignored? Thanks to his drop in many polls, Perry won't be sitting at the center of the stage this time -- he's been pushed to the side in favor of Cain. Cain has said Perry isn't worth attacking -- he's going after Mitt Romney. The Washington Post's Thanks to his drop in many polls, Perry won't be sitting at the center of the stage this time -- he's been pushed to the side in favor of Cain. Cain has said Perry isn't worth attacking -- he's going after Mitt Romney. The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza says this could mean Perry will do better with the pressure off -- or that he won't get enough airtime to be able to explain himself. 
 
 Can Bachmann steal some attention? Bachmann did very well in her first debate performances, but hasn't been able to keep the momentum going. Her aides Bachmann did very well in her first debate performances, but hasn't been able to keep the momentum going. Her aides say she performs best when she can contrast her conservatism with whatever's going on in Washington -- and lack of action on President Obama's jobs bill has made it harder for her to do that. The Senate's vote on the bill tonight could give her something to talk about. 
 
 Will Mitt Romney shine? The economy is suppose to be his issue. Romney's put out a The economy is suppose to be his issue. Romney's put out a 59-point economic plan -- that's way more points than everyone else's plan, but it's definitely not as catchy. If Romney can't win over skeptical Republican voters on this issue, how can he ever get them on his side? 
 
 We'll be back at 7p.m. to liveblog the event. 
 
 Updates: 
 
 10:31p.m.: What did we learn? Cain found out that being the hottest new Not Mitt Romney candidate is What did we learn? Cain found out that being the hottest new Not Mitt Romney candidate is not so easy . He also loves secrets. Perry, who entered the race with so much swag, is easily forgotten now that he's not in the top two in polls. Mitt Romney is learning how to act natural but only sometimes succeeding. Newt Gingrich wants to lock up Sen. Chris Dodd for his role in financial regulatory reform, instead of bankers for their role in the financial crisis, as the Occupy Wall Street protesters are demanding. Hunstman is still running to be President of Media. His daughters are hoping their prolific tweeting will get them some kind of cabinet-level appointment 
 
 As for the pre-debate questions we posed, the answers are: Yes, Cain was asked to get specific about his 9-9-9 plan, but no, he was not willing to go into those details. No, Perry didn't explain his economic plan -- he only promised that one was coming. And the lack of attention hurt him -- the Texan was basically ignored. Yes, Bachmann was able to steal some of the spotlight from the guys, and she seemed more serious -- no mention of vaccines causing retardation. Romney performed well, as expected. 
 
 10:20p.m.: Debate commentary has been overloaded with Debate commentary has been overloaded with references to Animal House, which was supposedly based on college life at Dartmouth, the site of the debate. Remarkably, Rick Perry's post-debate party at a frat house is not a joke. As The Atlantic's Garance Franke-Ruta pointed out, "The Rick Perry Debate watch party at Beta Theta Pi" is a real thing. The Weekly Standard's John McCormack reports that the Beta boys are loving the governor. "Too bad there are only 75 people here," he notes. 
 
 10:11p.m.: Quick reactions: 
 
 Politico's Jonathan Martin: "Did Paul use Richard Nixon's make-up guy tonite?" 
 
 The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza: "Now that Perry is mortally wounded, the next week will be about the complete destruction of Herman Cain by Romney and press. Won't be hard." Also: "Wonder what time slot Cain will get for his Fox show after the election." 
 
 Republican strategist Mike Murphy: "Scorecard: Strong Mitt, weak Perry. Good format, but Charlie wobbled. Hunts better, Newt too. But nobody saw it. Nothing changes." 
 
 The Washington Post's Ezra Klein: "Debate wrap: Romney won. Not-Romney, not-Romney, not-Romney, not-Romney, not-Romney, not-Romney and not-Romney didn't." 
 
 The New York Times' Nate Silver: "My debate grades FWIW: Romney B+, Cain B, Huntsman B-, Gingrich B-, Bachmann C+, Paul C+, Santorum C, Perry C" 
 
 Univserity of Virginia's Larry Sabato: "Cain's 9-9-9 will be only thing most people remember. Double-edged sword, because now it is going to be analyzed as more than a slogan." 
 
 9:51p.m.: Perry promises to "make America America again." What does that mean? Charlie Rose says he believes in tables. That makes more sense. 
 
 9:50p.m.: Look at this funny picture of Romney. In fairness, it would be really hard to sit through things like this if rolling your eyes was basically illegal. Look at this funny picture of Romney. In fairness, it would be really hard to sit through things like this if rolling your eyes was basically illegal. 
 
 9:48p.m.: Cain says he can relate to Americans suffering in this economy because "I was 'po'' before I was 'poor.'" He's funny. 
 
 Answering the same question, Gingrich says he grew up as a military brat, but... well, likeability is not so important. 
 
 9:47p.m.: Santorum and Rose are interrupted by a shouting person in the audience. What did he say? 
 
 9:43p.m.: Gingrich says Obama wants America to fail. There is a stream of American thought that wants America to fail so the government can share in the misery, he says. You can see it in Jimmy Carter's malaise speech, and in Obama's "apologias disguised as press conferences." 
 
 9:35p.m.: Romney talks to a New Hampshire voter about the regulatory burdens that small banks face. He seems more compassionate and better at connecting with this regular person than usual. Maybe Romney's just better at empathizing with fellow business people. The emotion on his face looks more genuine than usual: Romney talks to a New Hampshire voter about the regulatory burdens that small banks face. He seems more compassionate and better at connecting with this regular person than usual. Maybe Romney's just better at empathizing with fellow business people. The emotion on his face looks more genuine than usual: 
 
 9:32p.m.: What Fed chair did Cain actually like? Alan Greenspan, Cain says, because he worked with him, and coordinated well with him in the early 1990s. "I have already given two candidates -- which I cannot name their names -- to replace Mr. Bernanke." Cain loves anonymity! Secret Fed candidates, secret economic advisers. The moderator asks for a hint, but Cain demurs: "I gotta keep them confidential." What Fed chair did Cain actually like? Alan Greenspan, Cain says, because he worked with him, and coordinated well with him in the early 1990s. "I have already given two candidates -- which I cannot name their names -- to replace Mr. Bernanke." Cain loves anonymity! Secret Fed candidates, secret economic advisers. The moderator asks for a hint, but Cain demurs: "I gotta keep them confidential." 
 
 Moderator: "Congressman Paul?" 
 
 Paul: "Spoken like a true insider... Greenspan was a disaster." 
 
 9:25p.m.: And Santorum's question goes to Cain, and the feasibility of his tax plan. Politico's And Santorum's question goes to Cain, and the feasibility of his tax plan. Politico's Ben Smith says, "Everyone's gunning for Cain because Cain is sitting on a big pile of soft poll." 
 
 9:22p.m.: Romney asks Bachmann how she'll create jobs, aside from lowering taxes. It's not really a tough question -- maybe Romney just wanted to have some of the attention off him for a minute. 
 
 9:18p.m.: Surprise, surprise: Perry asks Romeny about Romneycare being the founding idea behind Obamacare. Romney defends his plan, saying it didn't affect people who already had health insurance. Then he tries to turn the question around, saying Texas has tons of uninsured kids. 
 
 9:15p.m.: Finally a question for someone other than Romney. Ron Paul asks Cain about his work for the Federal Reserve in Kansas City. The Fed causes depressions, Paul says. It bails out companies and foreign government, he says, and accuses Cain of being dismissive of his desire to audit the Fed. Cain denies he called "you or any of your people 'ignorant.'" He says he did nothing like this when he served at the Fed. 
 
 9:12p.m.: Huntsman promises his question to Romney won't be about religion -- "Sorry about that, Rick." Huntsman says Romney fired a bunch of people when he worked for Bain Capital. Romney counters he started Staples, a steel mill -- "We began businesses... created tens of thousands of new jobs." 
 
 9:10p.m.: Gingrich refers to President Obama's "class warfare approach," in asking Romney, essentially, why his tax increases are even class warfar-ier. Romney is probably going to get the most of these questions. 
 
 9:08p.m.: The candidates are now going to ask each other questions. Republican strategist The candidates are now going to ask each other questions. Republican strategist Mike Murphy says, "Now for the excruciating, staff written, awkward, too clever by half 'questions' they will ask each other." Bachmann opens by asking Perry about his endorsement of Al Gore in 1988. (ABC News' Rick Klein notes Bachmann once backed Jimmy Carter.) Cain asks Romney if he can name all 59 points in his economic plan. Cain's question is cleverer. 
 
 8:58p.m.: Rick Santorum uses audience participation to show that Cain's 9-9-9 plan wouldn't pass. How many New Hampshire residents want a national sales tax? The audience, not ready for that kind of interaction, does not move. Santorum sparks the most interesting exchange of the night on health care. He also says, "I want to go to war with China." A trade war, he means. A man of the people, he is the only candidate wearing a button-down collar. 
 
 8:50p.m.: Huntsman says on China, Romney is taking a page from Donald Trump. Will that actually hurt Romney with Republican voters? Huntsman says on China, Romney is taking a page from Donald Trump. Will that actually hurt Romney with Republican voters? 
 
 8:48p.m.: The moderators keep pushing Cain on his 9-9-9 plan. Asked about economic analysts that his plan wouldn't bring in enough money to fund the government, Cain says, "The problem with that analysis is that it is incorrect." Bachmann is asked what she thinks of the plan, since she's a former tax lawyer. "The last thing you would do is give Congress another a pipeline of a revenue stream," Bachmann says. A national sales tax would do that, she continues, and once Congress was given that money it would never let go. "When you take the 9-9-9 plan and you turn it upside down, I think the devil's in the details." The moderators keep pushing Cain on his 9-9-9 plan. Asked about economic analysts that his plan wouldn't bring in enough money to fund the government, Cain says, "The problem with that analysis is that it is incorrect." Bachmann is asked what she thinks of the plan, since she's a former tax lawyer. "The last thing you would do is give Congress another a pipeline of a revenue stream," Bachmann says. A national sales tax would do that, she continues, and once Congress was given that money it would never let go. "When you take the 9-9-9 plan and you turn it upside down, I think the devil's in the details." 
 
 8:46p.m.: Jon Huntsman's daughters Jon Huntsman's daughters tweet : "Romney arguing w/ Charlie Rose during break. Guess they didn't stick to the questions given earlier." 
 
 8:41p.m.: Political reporters love sports metaphors, but they are usually inappropriate, because sports represent the heights to which humanity can soar and politics represents the lows to which we can sink. But The New Yorker's Political reporters love sports metaphors, but they are usually inappropriate, because sports represent the heights to which humanity can soar and politics represents the lows to which we can sink. But The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza offers one that seems appropriate: "Romney just wants it more than anyone else up there." 
 
 8:38p.m.: Perry struggles answering a question prompted by a clip of Ronald Reagan urging passing a bill that mixed tax increases with spending cuts. He finally spits out his desire to pass a federal balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, and the crowd cheers. 
 
 8:38p.m.: Bloomberg's Bloomberg's Jonathan Alter tweets, "Cain just said they didn't bail out every big bank. That's totally inaccurate. Paulson made them all accept bailouts." 
 
 8:35p.m.: Texas Public Policy Foundation's Texas Public Policy Foundation's Joshua Treviño tweets, "Man, too bad Rick Perry couldn't be here for this debate." Likewise, Republican strategist Mike Murphy jokes, "Is Perry still in the building?" Looks like the answer to one of our pre-debate questions -- how will being pushed aside by Cain affect Perry? -- has been answered. He's getting very little attention. 
 
 8:28p.m.: Romney defends his support for the bank bailout by saying, "No one likes the idea of a Wall Street bailout." Says the actions of then-President Bush in the 2008 financial crisis kept the dollar from collapsing. The Washington Post's Romney defends his support for the bank bailout by saying, "No one likes the idea of a Wall Street bailout." Says the actions of then-President Bush in the 2008 financial crisis kept the dollar from collapsing. The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza notes that while Romney says that while he wouldn't "keep" Ben Bernanke, Gingrich says he should be thrown in jail. "Romney playing for general," Cillizza says. 
 
 8:24p.m.: Cain defends his plan, saying it will pass "because the American people want it to pass." It has been well studied and well developed, Cain says. I will have some experts, he says. He mentions one staffer -- "Rich Lowrie out of Celeveland, Texas." The rest remain anonymous, despite repeated questions. Lowrie is a "wealth management consultant." 
 
 8:22p.m.: Huntsman gets a questions that seems designed for Herman Cain: who are your economic advisers? Cain has Huntsman gets a questions that seems designed for Herman Cain: who are your economic advisers? Cain has refused to say which of the "best-known economists in this country" are working for him. 
 
 Huntsman is asked about Cain's 9-9-9- plan sounds catchy, and offers his second date joke -- "I thought it was the price of his pizza." 
 
 8:21p.m.: Bachmann makes quite an accusation: "President Obama plans for Medicare to collapse so that everyone will be pushed into Obamacare." 
 
 8:17p.m.: Just as Gingrich waited just 10 minutes to get in his signature move, a shot at the press, Jon Huntsman does his favorite trick on his first question: a dad joke. He tells Perry that Texas isn't the gas capital of the country, "the gas capital of America is Washington!" Ho ho ho. It seems like he just can't help looking like a dork: 
 
 Kind of amazing he was initially sold as the cool candidate 
 
 8:13p.m.: On Occupy Wall Street, Newt Gingrich says of the protesters talking about prosecuting bankers that they should be looking at politicians instead. Charlie Rose asks, clearly you're not saying they should be put in jail? Gingrich says look at former Sen. Chris Dodd's mortgage deal with Countrywide. On Occupy Wall Street, Newt Gingrich says of the protesters talking about prosecuting bankers that they should be looking at politicians instead. Charlie Rose asks, clearly you're not saying they should be put in jail? Gingrich says look at former Sen. Chris Dodd's mortgage deal with Countrywide. 
 
 Then, as he has in every debate, Gingrich takes a shot at the media. 
 
 8:10p.m.: The federal government is to blame for the 2008 financial crisis, Michele Bachmann says. Moderator Karen Tumulty says deregulation allowed speculation on housing -- but Bachmann strongly pushes back that federal programs pushed for that speculation, especially Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. "The fault goes back to the federal goverment." She sounds serious, her voice commanding. 
 
 8:06p.m.: Charlie Rose asks Perry why he's been in the race so long but hasn't come up with an economic plan. Perry says he'd cut regulations that are "strangling American entrepreneurship." He promises the plan is coming -- and says Romney has had six years to come up with a plan. 
 
 8:00p.m.: The candidates are introduced. Jon Huntsman is breaking from a two-debate streak of yellow ties. Herman Cain is sticking to yellow. 
 
 7:56p.m.: The candidates have The candidates have taken their seats at Charlie Rose's somber wooden roundtable.Businessweek's Joshua Green says Perry walked out on stage 40 minutes ago, mid-debate prep, looking " 
 
 7:50p.m.: Debate prep we can relate to: The Washington Post's Debate prep we can relate to: The Washington Post's Amy Gardner tweets, "Newt Gingrich has drunk his debate-prepping Diet Coke, his spokesman has just informed us. He's ready." 
 
 7:31p.m.: The Washington Post's The Washington Post's Amy Gardner reports that the Bloomberg VIP tent is serving lobster rolls. Lucky! And The New York Times' Michael D. Shear reports that reporters are also being served "an early Thanksgiving meal of turkey, stuffing, gravy, and pie." How is the mainstream media supposed understand the struggling working people of America when they're eating so many delicious treats? 
 
 7:27p.m.: It will be interesting to see how directly Romney and Perry attack each other. When Texas preacher Robert Jeffress endorsed Perry by saying he was a better Christian than Romney -- and that Romney's Mormonism made him a "cult" member -- Romney demanded Perry repudiate Jeffress. Perry demanded, via press release, that Romney repudiate Romneycare instead. But the Weekly Standard's It will be interesting to see how directly Romney and Perry attack each other. When Texas preacher Robert Jeffress endorsed Perry by saying he was a better Christian than Romney -- and that Romney's Mormonism made him a "cult" member -- Romney demanded Perry repudiate Jeffress. Perry demanded, via press release, that Romney repudiate Romneycare instead. But the Weekly Standard's John McCormack reports that the Texan's son, Griffin Perry, says he doesn't agree with Jeffress. "Mitt Romney has come out and said that he believes Jesus Christ is his savior. That makes him a Christian," the younger Perry says. Now that we've got that out of the way... 
 
 7:10p.m.: Bloomberg cut away from its pre-debate punditry mid-sentence once the collegiate activists got do loud the analysts were drowned out. This doesn't bode well for the college's attempts to avoid Bloomberg cut away from its pre-debate punditry mid-sentence once the collegiate activists got do loud the analysts were drowned out. This doesn't bode well for the college's attempts to avoid embarrassing outbursts during the debate. 
 
 7:05p.m.: The protesters are out at Dartmouth. They're so loud you can't really hear Bloomberg's analysts: 
 
 Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments or send an email to the author at ereeve at theatlantic dot com. You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire. 
 
 Elspeth Reeve
– Newt Gingrich got more airtime than usual in last night's national security-focused Republican debate, and most pundits agree that his performance was good enough to win over plenty of undecided voters. "Gingrich showed that he has been thinking about these issues for decades," writes Corbett B. Daly at CBS News. Jon Huntsman showed his competence, and Mitt Romney did well despite turning in one of his weakest debate performances so far, while Herman Cain and Rick Perry floundered, he writes. Gingrich showed that he's a skilled debater, but "his refusal to back away from his belief that we shouldn’t throw out all 11 million people here illegally could come back to bite him in a party that is vehemently opposed to anything that looks or sounds like amnesty," notes Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post. Gingrich's "snappy comebacks and ferocious defenses of tough security positions" will have impressed many GOP voters, but his argument for immigration reform will make the debate "a double-edged sword" for him, concludes Molly Ball at the Atlantic. His history of moderation on immigration might serve him well in a general election, but it won't do him any favors in the Republican primaries, she writes. Romney "made no real miscues," but he had "no breakout moments at a debate that was about an issue where he is supposed to be far ahead of the field," notes Maggie Haberman at Politico. Michele Bachmann "made her points clearly and succinctly, and seemed like she belonged on the stage," and while Ron Paul performed strongly "within his predictable boundaries: fewer wars, less government intrusion, and less aid to foreign nations," he did nothing to show that he can broaden his support, she writes.