The Bloomberg/Washington Post Debate: How Did the Candidates Do?

COMMENTARY | Tuesday night, the Republicans gather around a table for a debate in Hanover, N.H., sponsored by Bloomberg and the Washington Post. There were no real surprises or incredibly glaring gaffes.

Mitt Romney continued to shine in the debate, giving calm, confident answers and looking altogether presidential; too presidential for anyone watching who either supported a conservative candidate or is a supporter of President Obama. While none of the other candidates were able to pin him down on Romneycare, Romney was still not able to find a satisfactory way to explain it that would sooth voters on the right.

Herman Cain pretty much maintained his cool and good humor as well, defending his 9-9-9 plan with alacrity. He stumbled just a bit in his defense of the Fed, suggesting his model for a Fed Chairman was Alan Greenspan.

Rick Perry did not offer any major gaffes, but he still seemed somewhat halting in his answers. He also lacked the energy necessary for someone who needs to climb out of a hole in a debate. He was unable to launch an effective assault on Romneycare, giving Romney an easy question on it that he could just bat away.

Newt Gingrich remained the smartest man in the room, giving good answers about how the federal government is responsible for the current mess we're in. His idea to start firing people, including Bernanke and Geithner, was well received. But his proposal to put Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank in jail was not well explained.

Michele Bachmann showed some life in this debate, easily batting aside the question about putting Wall Street crooks in jail, fixing the blame on the federal government and explaining why. She also asked some awkward questions about 9-9-9, though Cain was able to mount a good defense.

Since the questions were about economics, Ron Paul did not have the opportunity to be crazy. He gave some good answers about the Fed and the need to audit it.

Rick Santorum ruminated about the difficulty of passing 9-9-9, which did not get him any points with the audience. His wish to "go to war with China" might have been phrased differently.

Jon Huntsman gave some good answers about why a trade war with China was ill advised and how he would settle trade and currency difficulties.