that isn't really going against what i said, he was largely reviled by the audience and had to actually be on the defense in answering tough questions (which appears as a failing upon cursory analysis). but in this field, political baggage is hardly an immediate disqualifier - none of the candidates would pass, but today, santorum was the focus (aside from romney on auto bailouts).

however! he got to present and describe his stances regarding market interference, military interventionism, morality, birth control, education - if people respond to this 'honesty' more than to squabbling over his political past (which was the focus of his weakness), then this debate doesn't seem critically harmful to him. it is not as though anyone would dare to attack his actual social/economic stances, and so if they are the attractive factor in his campaign, he just got to advertise them for free.

the return of gingrich relies only on the fact that he wasn't being attacked this time. he contributed very little other than agreeing with the others, ensuring that tough questions were redirected to less divisive topics, and bringing up his pet policy proposals. he also sat back during the arguments and so avoids the negative aspect of being caught up with in-fighting. i would not call this better than a neutral performance.

i'm fairly sure that ron paul did the best of the lot in this debate with regard to presenting his stances and policies in a fairly unopposed manner, but it remains to be seen what kind of response this will have (since he is not arguing on the same terms as everyone else).