I'm sorry to say I couldn't handle it, with gauze jammed in my mouth and Vicodin addling my brain. (On the other hand, perhaps those were the ideal conditions for viewing.) But here are some reactions: J.F. at DiA:
The crowd’s favourite, of course, was Ron Paul, who seems to be making a great career out of winning adoring crowds without winning elections. It was heartening to hear the loud cheers that greeted his firm opposition to torture (less heartening: three of the five candidates on stage—Messers Cain, Santorum and Pawlenty—raised their hands when asked if they would support waterboarding).
Santorum backing torture, regarded by his church as an absolute evil, indefensible on any grounds? Funny how these defenders of absolute papal authority and no distinction between church and state just ignore core Catholic values when it suits them. Here's Conor's take:
A lot of people are lamenting the fact that only five candidates were present, but watching the event, I preferred it. The American people were afforded the chance to learn about some of the lesser-knowns. In fact, I wonder if a field of ten candidates should always be split in two sections during early debates. It isn't as if there is much interaction among pols, and once you've got more than six or seven people on stage there just isn't enough time for anyone to be meaningfully interrogated.
Fox wasted airfare, production costs, and the time of some of their marquee names—Chris Wallace, Juan Williams, and Bret Baier—who asked questions of a bunch of also-rans without even pretending to listen to their answers. The first clue this debate was a disaster was when the moderators began to ask the placeholders on stage about candidates who weren’t even there: Mitt Rom-bot, Trump, Daniels, Huckabee, Bachmann, Gingrich, and Trump, again.
The consensus going in was that the lack of frontrunners in the room would minimize the importance of the event. The consensus going out was that the lack of frontrunners in the room minimized the importance of the event—and that Ron Paul's supporters are really loud.
Noah Kristula-Green and Tim Mak:
Pawlenty’s toughest question was the grilling he got on Cap-and-Trade. Fox managed to bring out many speeches and radio ads where Pawlenty had shown his support in the past for a Cap-and-Trade policy. His answer to the question to amounted to “We’ve all made mistakes” and added that there is no such thing as a perfect candidate, challenging anyone who thought they were perfect to declare themselves. Romney wishes he could give that sort of answer on Romneycare.
[S]ome of the expected voices like Jim Hoft and Stacy McCain immediately went into full blow, ALL CAPS DRUDGE MODE yelling CAIN WINS! CAIN WINS! But let’s face it … [I]f we absolutely must pick winners and losers in these things, in the most unsurprising conclusion of all time I’d say round one went to T-Paw. But if Cain can keep turning in performances like that consistently, the rest of the pack may need to start keeping an eye over their shoulders.
The Dish 