ROGER SIMON: Notes from the Spin Room — Perils of the ‘P-word’. Plus this: “I wish Gary Johnson were the libertarian standard bearer. He may have his eccentricities, but the former New Mexico governor is at least a fun guy to have drinks with. When I met him, I almost wanted to start smoking joints again. Well, not quite. On a more general point, just who does decide who gets to be included in these debates? Why Santorum and Huntsman but not Johnson?”

Plus this: “Romney and Perry were fine. We should be so lucky if either of them replaced Obama tomorrow morning. I’d treat everyone to champagne from here to Ohio. Huntsman is another matter. For a while I sort of liked him, but then things started to roll down hill fast. His pretentious belief in man-made global warming as settled science is so silly you want to guffaw. And then there’s his isolationist foreign policy. Sorry. No sale.”

UPDATE: Big Losers In Last Night’s Debate? The Moderators.

More here: “These questions were clearly fair game, but the phrasing and tone of the moderator made them seem far more akin to a scene from the Spanish Inquisition. Honestly, by the end of the evening I had lost track of the number of questions which were far less solicitations of opinion and policy than accusations. It was as if Brian Williams and company were looking for the candidates to apologize for being conservatives. As the night progressed, it became clear that the hosts would be severely disappointed.”

ANOTHER UPDATE: Jim Treacher: Perry vs. Everybody.

Plus, from Ann Althouse on Chris Matthews:

So Mr. Science there — the man whose leg felt a thrill when he heard Barack Obama — says “big, hard, bad” and “hard, bad” when he sees Rick Perry. I’d say Matthews is scared. He’s spewing emotion. But he would like us to believe he’s devoted to science! A burbling bundle of emotion attempts to embody seriousness about science. It’s absurd. . . . Let’s look at the transcript and try to inject a little reality into the Matthews word-mush. . . . Perry said he wanted accurate science and more science — especially when it is the basis for proposals that would have a “monstrous economic impact.” . . . Matthews, brought on to analyze the debate, seems barely to have heard what Perry actually said. He simply unleashed a torrent over words around the subject of science and tried to scare people — if anyone was still watching — about this yahoo monkeyman Perry.

I remember a couple of decades ago when Matthews was a respected commentator. Now I’m wondering why.