The College Fix

After tonight’s debate — the first with Govs. Mitt Romney and Rick Perry squaring off on the national stage — we asked a few of our regular contributors to weigh in on the winners and losers. Hate or love what they have to say? Hit us up in the comments. Updated at 9:45 a.m. with one more reaction.

Jeremy Rozansky, University of Chicago

Entering the debate, there was a clear top tier of two governors with great hair aiming to be the jobs/recovery/growth candidate. Perry had and has the upper hand, due to a significantly better record on the issue. Knowing this, Perry, again and again, pivoted to jobs a move that, while often performed clumsily, was effective. Romney knows he needs a rejoinder, and tested out his line that a governor taking credit for creating jobs is like Al Gore taking credit for inventing the Internet, an invocation that is always a crowdpleaser. Mitt Romney actually has created jobs, for he was an entrepreneur. But conservatives don’t want a president who creates jobs as an entrepreneur would: hiring more people to do more tasks. It’s a rejoinder that doesn’t hold up well.

But if jobs are issue 1A, Obamacare is issue 1B—another issue where Perry holds the advantage. Romney moved away from sophistic 10th Amendment answer on Romneycare question, toward the problem posed by emergency-room free-riders. A Paul Ryan might have called him out on the high risk pool alternative, but Paul Ryan isn’t on the stage. Romney’s answers sounded real swell and Perry’s often didn’t, but the issue advantage for Perry hasn’t been reversed, so Romney’s cosmetic victory is just that: cosmetic. As long as we are talking about jobs and health care, Perry rises and Romney falls.

Five other thoughts:

• Bachmann was an afterthought. She is firmly on the tier behind Romney and Perry.
• Huntsman, both by being more orange and more glib, was a terrific foil in the mind of the Romney camp.
• Gingrich is this year’s Alan Keyes, he only makes noise at the debates, but it sure is splendid noise.
• Herman Cain has tremendously persuasive manners; I wish Perry could talk like him.
• Ron Paul manages to declare himself against air-conditioning in the Near East, only a few moments after Rick Perry declared himself anti-cancer. There is a reason we don’t pay attention to him.

WINNER: Romney sounded better, but never reversed the issue advantage. Stalemate.

Cameron Parker, UNC-Chapel Hill

Mitt Romney has to be feeling pretty good about tonight’s debate.

The first five minutes were the most revealing. Rick Perry came out swinging — as expected. But the level of vitriol between himself and Romney — strategically placed next to him — was still a little shocking. Romney and Perry spent several exchanges comparing their respective gubernatorial records, but methinks Romney ultimately prevailed by pointing out that frankly, the whole argument was like comparing apples and oranges.

This could have been a bad night for Romney. Even though Tim Pawlenty is gone, the ghost of “Obamneycare” still haunts the campaign. But Romney handled it well, and even got a bump from Newt Gingrich, who was ever-eager to chastise the media for making it look like the GOP is divided on the Affordable Care Act.

Perry failed defensively on key questions about the welfare state. He suggested 25 percent of Texas citizens don’t have health insurance because of — get ready for it — the federal government. And while I personally agree that Social Security meets the definition of a Ponzi scheme (as Perry adamantly affirmed), that tack is as politically solvent as medicare is financially.

Perry also took hits for his support for state mandated HPV vaccinations. Gardasil continues to be a blemish on his alleged small-government credentials. Awkward answers also ensued to questions ranging from wealth inequality, to foreign policy, and even global warming (Galileo was “outvoted?”)

Michelle Bachmann is fading fast — barely behind Ron Paul. And with the media’s fetish for libertarian takes on federal programs, hardly any of the lower-tier candidates got a word in besides Paul. I can’t say after tonight that there is another winning candidate on the stage.

Of course, that doesn’t include Gary Johnson and Thaddeus McCotter.

WINNER: Romney

Zach Wahls, University of Iowa

Really?

Once again, we saw a stage full of suits largely disconnected from reality.

I wish I had more than 300 words.

Three governors get up on stage and proclaim that government cannot create jobs and then turn around and talk about how many jobs they all created—while serving as executives in government.

Newt Gingrich—the serious thinker!—calls Ben Bernanke, “the most inflationary Fed Chairman in the history of the United States.” During Mr. Bernanke’s term, inflation has grown at an average of 2.81% per year, which is far below the thirty-year average of 5.10% per year.

Michele Bachmann makes the patently false claim that Obamacare—which we take care not to forget is what the GOP proposed in the nineties—took over six percent of the American economy, and then argues that mandatory polio vaccines are a bad idea.

Perry cuts spending for Texas firefighters, then asks for federal assistance in fighting fires. Perry cuts spending on border patrols, then asks for US military boots on the ground. And then gets applause for the execution of over two hundred people.

Really?

Oh, and to build on Mr. Huntsman’s response to Michele Bachmann’s claim that she would have gasoline down to $2/gallon. Fact is, it takes at least five, usually closer to ten, years to identify, drill and develop an oil field. It doesn’t matter if the oil field is in Alaska or Saudi Arabia. But I guess that’s only in “reality,” where you have to deal with things like “facts,” and “history.”

If only Huntsman had a chance. But he’s pro-science, anti-pledge, thinks that illegal immigrants are human beings and refuses to call the President of the United States a liar—and that’s not what Republicans are looking for.

WINNER: Huntsman

Ian Malone, Managing editor of the Boston College Observer

While eight prospective candidates showed up for last night’s GOP debate, the show was all about Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.

It is hard to declare a winner in debates like these, especially since the race has just been heating up as of late. Perry really had more to lose last night than he had to gain. Romney and Michelle Bachman had ample opportunity to prove why their still relevant in this race but failed miserably in their attempts.

The one real positive thing that Romney can take out of this is that he showed a little charisma.  Charisma is a pretty important thing to have for a job that is largely won by one’s ability to speak in front of an audience and Romney proved that he could speak for more than thirty seconds without provoking large group naps from the audience.

This was Perry’s night though. He didn’t really introduce anything groundbreaking in terms of policy or his beliefs, but he basically tore Romney to shreds whenever the two went head to head. Romney was clearly feeling the heat that the Governor of Texas was bringing and it showed.

These debates are about how they can handle tough situations in a short amount of time. Perry showed that he can perform with grace under pressure more than any other candidate that showed up last night. We’ve been without a governor from Texas as president for four years now and Perry made sure we knew how much it is missed.

Winner: Perry

Matt Berry, Tulane University College Republicans

Rick Perry had one job tonight: to appear as a frontrunner for the GOP nomination and a serious threat to President Obama’s reelection. He did not accomplish this. Despite his ability in connecting with primary voters on the stump, he is not an effective debater. His style was unfocused. His strategy was unclear. In this, I am left with serious reservations about Perry as the most effective vehicle for conservative ideas when combating President Obama mano-a-mano. Governor Perry is excellent at presenting his ideas to Republicans. The problem is that Republicans already agree with him.

Tonight the candidates stood before Ronald Reagan’s legacy and each tried to make the case that he should be the standard-bearer of that legacy. We celebrate Reagan’s greatness in large part for his ability to present conservatism to people who weren’t already conservative and win them over. If tonight was any indication, then Rick Perry is either unable or unwilling to do this. He seemed to be in Simi Valley to attract refugees from the sinking U.S.S. Bachmann. He probably did this well. But meanwhile, Mitt Romney was running for President.

WINNER: Romney

Ryan Normandin, opinion editor of the MIT Tech

Watching the ignorance on economics, science, and a host of other topics displayed at Republican presidential debates is always entertaining, but Wednesday night’s zoo showcased just how sad a state the party is really in. Ron Paul, as usual, was the craziest of the bunch, expressing his desire to abolish FEMA and air traffic control, along with promising $1 gasoline. But the most worrisome aspect of tonight’s debate was not the host of candidates, but the audience. What kind of inhuman mob cheers when the moderator mentions that 234 people have been executed in Texas, the most of any state? Regardless of your stance on the death penalty, this is disgusting, inexcusable, and a display of Republicans at their absolute worst.

Of greater worry were the more mainstream Perry and Bachmann. Bachmann reaffirmed her promise of $2 gas, which she suggested would be possible through such things as drilling in the Everglades. Both candidates reaffirmed their commitment to ignorance by once again denying climate change, claiming that it was politically motivated and that the science had yet to be settled. As a student at MIT, this willful ignorance is especially painful, shameful, and an embarrassment to this country. Along with Perry’s defense of his huge cuts in education, it is safe to say that the Republican Party is largely one that celebrates ignoring facts.

The two individuals who did not embarrass themselves completely were Romney and Huntsman. Both have strong economic track records, neither are anti-science, and both largely refrained from sensationalistic rhetoric about abolishing government departments, etc. They were more cautious and moderate, remnants of what the GOP used to be. Because Huntsman has the better economic record and has a solid understanding of foreign policy, he gets my pick for the least of 8 evils tonight.

WINNER: Huntsman

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter