Last night’s Fox News-Washington Examiner debate in Iowa was the most sheerly entertaining political event in decades — a rapid-fire, no-holds-barred multiplayer smackdown with the toughest set of questions ever posed to presidential candidates.The Republicans were challenged as candidates rarely are challenged, and by two journalistic organizations generally considered friendly to the GOP.The questioning was so sharp that Newt Gingrich was reduced to complaining about having to explain two contradictory quotes about Libya because Fox hadn’t included a third quote of his.Indeed, the debate ranged so widely and so quickly that several candidates rose and fell in the course of it.Take the breakout star of the first two debates, Michele Bachmann.She saw an opening when she was attacked by her fellow Minnesotan, ex-Gov. Tim Pawlenty, and proceeded to chew up him and spit him out.Advantage Bachmann.

But then she chewed on him and chewed on him and began looking mean.

Ten points taken from Bachmann.

Then she was asked a real doozy by Byron York of the Examiner about whether she actually believed a woman should “submit” to her husband — a view she has promulgated in the past — and answered quietly and with a profession of love and respect for her husband. Bachmann was back!

Then, 10 minutes later, she gave an answer on her opposition to raising the debt ceiling so incoherent that even those inclined to support her view must have been baffled and confused.

She claimed the Standard and Poor’s downgrade supported her view when S&P actually said the very fact that the need for a debt-ceiling increase had been in dispute helped cause the downgrade. Bad Bachmann.

Charting her performance in the debate would be like charting the Dow over the last week. Volatile would be the word for it, and volatility is not what Republicans are looking for in a candidate.

As for Pawlenty, rarely has a fluent and well-prepared candidate with a solid record of accomplishment and an ability to think and argue on his feet proved so . . . meh. His candidacy is a wet match, and last night probably marked its end.

Utah ex-Gov. Jon Huntsman’s baffling decision to run for president proved even more baffling when he began the debate by admitting he didn’t have an economic plan ready yet. Throughout, he looked as though he was in the middle of one of those school-anxiety dreams where you’re got to take a final exam on material you’ve never studied.

And then there was Rep. Ron Paul, who said it was fine with him if Iran got nukes and there should be no Federal Reserve Board and America should get off everybody’s lawn. His major combatant was ex-Sen. Rick Santorum, and the two of them sparred and scuffled for no particularly good reason, as neither of them has any business pretending he might be president.

What Republicans nationally are looking for in a candidate is someone who can win next year. And yet again, there was no question that the only plausible candidate on the stage fitting the description was Mitt Romney.

Romney is a weak frontrunner for all kinds of reasons, but standing on a stage next to seven other people who have no chance of being president, he looks like a Colossus.

So he won. Again. But his performance was sufficiently unmemorable that he is clearly vulnerable to a strong showing by the incoming Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Or just about anybody else serious who might want to get in.

This is a race Republicans can win. There’s still time. Romney’s got problems. Perry’s far from perfect. The next debate should be one that isn’t just fun, but that actually features a genuine argument between two or three people who might actually be president.

jpodhoretz@gmail.com