to live coverage of tonight's Republican presidential candidates debate in Spartanburg, South Carolina. The topic tonight is supposedly foreign policy but never mind that – the real questions are: Can Rick Perry remember what day of the week it is? Can Herman Cain make it through 90 minutes without casual misogyny? And can anyone lay a finger on frontrunner Mitt Romney?

And the definitive answer to all three questions is: maybe.

It seems like only yesterday that the Texas governor sent his ailing campaign into a tail spin when he blanked out on the third thing in a list of three. In fact it was the day before the day before yesterday It could happen to anybody, said his supporters. But anybody isn't running for president – even if the current Republican field is a veritable "who's that?" of political talent.

Perry of course has to make it through the whole debate without even the hint of a gaffe, snafu or misstatement. But of course that's why we are all watching. Deer caught in headlights have better debate repartee than Rick Perry.

Foreign policy, though, is the hardest subject for the eight Republican candidate on stage tonight, because it not only requires them to know facts but also that it is the one area where even the occasional Republican concedes that President Obama has had one or two tiny successes, such as the death of whats-his-name, that guy, Osaka Lin Baden.

Of the candidates, Ron Paul has at least a coherent presidential foreign policy, which is not to have a foreign policy and leave the rest of the world to its own devices. For the rest, foreign policy boils down to two words "Israel" (good) and "China" (bad). The only exception is Jon Huntsman, who runs with "China" (good) – although he is hampered by knowing something about the subject, as a former US ambassador to China.

The only other performance of note could be that of Herman Cain, and the increasing ludicrous contortions he needs to go through to link foreign policy with his tedious 9-9-9 tax reform boondoggle.

The action starts at 8pm ET and we'll be blogging every hesitation, repetition and deviation by Rick Perry right here. Or you can follow me on Twitter @RichardA and read much the same nonsense but shrunk to just 140 characters. And why not vent your frustration by leaving a comment below? It's therapeutic.

The Republican debate is being carried by the CBS network – live on network television, which is unusual for primary debates so far in this cycle. Either it means the debate ratings are creeping up, or its unusually dismal Saturday night programming for CBS.

CBS News is live streaming the debate right here for those you without benefit of a telly or US geographical location.

So after his brain feeze last time, Rick Perry is putting in more preparation, right? Mmm. Here's a tweet from @GovernorPerry from this afternoon:

Debate prep in Spartanburg, SC !!

http://yfrog.com/h714wrizj

Very droll, and even more so when Perry forgets which state he's in later tonight.

If you really want a fair fight with a referee and a clear winner, then you are wasting your time following tonight's debate. What you really want is the Manny Pacquiao versus Juan Manuel Márquez fight in Vegas tonight. And my colleague Steve Busfield is doing the live blow-by-blow here.

Well that was exciting: for some reason the WUSA channel here in DC – the CBS affiliate – decided to run some sort of rancid infomercial selling 60s music until about two minutes ago. Phew.

Except that its now just cut into an episode of the McLaughlin Group. That's still going? Oh god there's Thomas Friedman – the poor man's Thomas Friedman.

So the first hour of this debate will be apparently the first one done live on network television this cycle? Really?

WUSA obviously though so highly of it that interrupted its busy Saturday night informercial schedule for an hour. Stiff competition. But then again, in a funny way a GOP primary debate is an infomercial: "And if you order now you get not one but two Mitt Romneys!"

Oh god Pat Buchanan is also on this McLaughlin Group. Tom Friedman and Pat Buchanan – and they wonder why America is in decline.

Here we go. CBS News's long intro of crappy quotes and soundbites is the worst yet. This doesn't bode well. Oh dear: "It's the commander in chief debate," intones a voice.

So Wednesday night's CNBC debate was ghastly. It's very early days but this one is worse already.

This debate's in Spartanburg? Shouldn't that be Spartanopolis? Just saying.

This is a foreign policy debate – and yet the moderator mentions that "the civil war came on the 40th day of a new presidency". Uh? The American Civil War was a foreign policy issue?

Now the candidates are being introduced ... with all the atmosphere of a funeral. A particularly depressing funeral.

First question is to Herman Cain, who says he'd tackle a nuclear-armed Iran by "assisting the opposition" and backs regime change. Would that include arming the opposition? wonders Major Garrett (that's his real name) in response. No, says Cain.

So how would you encourage the Iranian opposition then, Herman? Give them tax breaks? He's not saying.

Oh god this debate isn't 10 minutes old and Mitt Romney is already the winner.

Romney was half-way through some sort of blast-attack on Barack Obama when the moderator cut in, saying his time was up. Mitt said that he still had 30 seconds left and that the red light hadn't come on. And, goddamit, the moderator admits defeat and apologises.

Mitt continues:

One thing we know. If we elect Barack Obama will have a nuclear weapon. If we elect Mitt Romney, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon.

Pressed if that means war, Mitt waffles on for a bit about sanctions – really tough sanctions! – and he is just about to declare war on Iran when the moderator cuts him off because his time really is up. Grr.

Anyway, a Romney presidency means war with Iran. Hurrah. It's been years since America had a bloody, expensive and fruitless war.

Ron Paul doesn't want to invade Iran. There are loud cheers from all his communist hippie supporters.

But don't worry, plenty of other non-Ron Paul Republican candidates are cool with the whole invading of Iran, so relax.

Actually, that Jon Huntsman sounds like a commie peacenik as well. And uses long words. No wonder he hasn't got a hope.

"Pakistan, friend or foe?" Herman Cain is asked. "We don't know," says Herman. He wants "specific commitments" from Pakistan to prove it is a friend of America's.

Like what? Such as, I don't know, maybe if Pakistan "liked" the US on Facebook? Would that do it, Herman?

Just pause and enjoy the start of this question: "Congresswoman Bachmann, you serve on the intelligence committee..."

Actually, Michele Bachmann makes easily the most sensible reply on the Pakistan so far, so I want to take back any insinuation about Michele Bachmann's intelligence. She actually was a voice of common sense. I know, I know.

"Senator Santorum, if a Pakistan nuclear weapon goes missing, what would you do?" Look for it?

OMG, now Santorum is talking commonsense about Pakistan. My gob is smacked – Santorum just laid waste to Gingrich, Romney, Perry et al.

I never thought I'd say this ... but Rick Santorum knows what he's talking about. Damn.

OK so Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum – on the issue of US-Pakistan relations – have sensible, non-insane positions.

In other news: next month will be composed entirely of Sundays. And Hell will have a cold spell.

On the other hand, Bachmann did go on to say:

It seems that the table is being set for world wide nuclear war against Israel. And if there's anything that we know, President Obama has been more than willing to stand with Occupy Wall Street, but he hasn't been willing to stand with Israel.

So, as you were.

Now Newt Gingrich is doing his "I'm-being-a-prick-to-the-media" schtick. Yawn.

This time it's on a follow-up to a remark Newt made yesterday on radio, slagging off Romney. But asked about it today he's all "oh you journalists and your gotcha tactics"?

Having repeatedly said that as president he'd trust his generals, Herman Cain is asked how he would decide between them.

Cain's reply, "I'd surround myself with the best people," looks kind of hilarious given his campaign manager Mark Block – the "best person" he picked to run his campaign – is an idiot.

Rick Perry is asked about his plan to abolish the Department of Energy ... oh ha ha, that's the third department he couldn't remember on Wednesday.

Quick as a flash, Perry interrupts:

Perry: You remembered it Moderator: I've had some to think about it, sir Perry: Me too

Oh how we laughed. Rick Perry has won this debate right now and will be elected as the 45th President of the United States in 2012. The end.

Oh the debate's still going? Well, for the sake of form I imagine. Actually there was a good round of laughs in there. But laughing with or at, it's not clear.

Technical issues! The best issues to have in the middle of a live blog.

Kind of catching up here but it looks like the ROMNEYBOT 3000 downloaded some new China software to iron out a few bugs from the last debate.

That didn't stop Jon Huntsman smacking Romney around correctly on the fact that he couldn't "report" China to the World Trade Organisation for currency manipulation.

Anyway, that was the "China bad!" section of the foreign policy debate. In which we all agreed that China is bad and Something Must Be Done.

Oh and now the debate finishes on TV but continues on a web feed. Fantastic! Who thought that one up?

I have no idea what's happening now, except that South Carolina's Lindsay Graham has appeared. Is he running for president? That would be a shock, announcing his run mid-way through a debate.

Oh he's just asking question about the use of torture.

I think CBSNews.com should have upgraded their internet connection from the "home user package". That might have helped.

CBS News really should get with this internet thing, it's going to be big. Can someone send them a 1999 copy of Wired?

Oh hey there's Jim DeMint, the other South Carolina senator. Now he should run for president, he'd beat the crap out of these bozos.

No, he's just asking a thinly disguised question about budget cuts.

My apologies, I've completely lost the thread here.

We appear to be going over the same questions again, about Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In general though, the tenor of all the answers here is that it's 1992 and US military and economic power is unchallenged.

Gingrich, for example, blithely sits there and spouts off about taking out President Assad of Syria through "covert means," as if it's that simple (not to mention illegal).

Let's pretend the last 10 years never happened, shall we?

Now Jon Huntsman is showing off that he actually knows stuff about things. God he's insufferable.

Apparently he's also a nice guy and has handsome, delightful children. You've got to hate him. He's like a Republican Al Gore.

Moving on to Europe, Huntsman used the word "metastasize" to describe the euro crisis. Then Rick Perry is asked a similar question – and he doesn't use the word "metastasize". But he does say that France and Germany "have the forewithall" to save the euro-zone. I guess that's like the "wherewithall" but ... in French?

And appropriately, the worst debate of the year – yes, I think we're safe on that one – ends with Perry in mid-sentence being cut off by Scott Palley, who blamed "the tyranny of the clock".

What? You cut it off halfway though during an internet video feed and blamed "the clock"? How do you spell "CBS"? F-A-I-L.

Can I just say that I called this as the worst debate so far in like the first minute? I think that almost makes up for my "Rick Perry is the nominee" post a few months ago.

The real loser in this debate was whoever it was at CBS News who thought it was a brilliant idea to have the first hour on national network television and then the final half hour via a web cam at an internet cafe.

But from a political point of view, the real loser was Herman Cain, who was rather piteously exposed as a lightweight. His answers here barely got above silly.

Here for example is Cain on Pakistan as a US ally:

We need a regional strategy in that area of the world such that all of our allies where we work together in order to come up with those things that will be mutually beneficial to everyone. Those are the questions that need to be asked.

There is a word for that sort of thing. And that word is: bullshit.

Geopolitics is not a Godfather's Pizza franchise workshop, which is the highest level diplomacy Cain has ever had to do. But the president of the United States has to make decisions based on opaque and conflicting information. This isn't about closing down a failing pizza restaurant in Topeka, it's life and death.

Ah ha, the transcript of Romney's arsey quibbling about time at the start:

SCOTT PELLEY: That's... MITT ROMNEY: And finally... PELLEY: That's the time by the governor on the question. ROMNEY: I get, I get... PELLEY: We're going to adhere to time. ROMNEY: I get 60... PELLEY: Very quickly... ROMNEY: ...seconds. PELLEY: But what made... ROMNEY: I get 60 seconds. PELLEY: Yes, yes sir. And the 60... ROMNEY: That was 30. PELLEY: The 60... ROMNEY: Sorry, it started at yellow so I – I have much more time to go. PELLEY: You, you know what, Governor? ROMNEY: Yes? PELLEY: I stand corrected. You are right. Please continue. ROMNEY: Yes. All right. Thank you.

It's like Samuel bleedin' Beckett this stuff.

An email from a reader:

The "reporting" on your blog about the Republican debate is just pure hatred. You "enlightened, intelligent, tolerant" liberals are too ignorant to even see your ridiculous hypocrisy. Mind your own fucking business, by the way, you loser Brits.

See, this is what happens when you say nice things about Bachmann and Santorum. Serves me right.

Another reader – not the same one as below, I'm guessing – emails to ask why Bachmann and Santorum were actually making sense on Pakistan.

My guess is that as members of Congress – Bachmann currently, Santorum up until 2007 – they would have been privy to briefings on the likes of Pakistan from grown-ups in the intelligence services and military, especially on the nuclear threat. As a result, they have had a cold dose of rationality lacking in the likes of Romney and Gingrich, who are busking it.

Post-debate mini-controversy erupts after Michele Bachmann's staff are mistakenly cc'd into a email from CBS before the debate saying: she's not going to get many questions and she's nearly off the charts".

Well, that's the harsh, harsh world of TV booking.

Tweet of the night came from my Guardian colleague Ana Marie Cox:

Huntsman's raised eyebrow should get its own MSNBC show.

His left eyebrow, presumably.

Now that Newt Gingrich is to be taken seriously – seriously – again for the next five minutes, let's take very seriously this grab-bag of ideas that Newt has pinched from the internet:

Moderator: If you were president, how would you think outside the box about some of the issues we've discussed here tonight? Gingrich: Oh, in a number of ways. As I said earlier, I would explicitly adopt the Reagan-John Paul II-Thatcher strategy towards Iran. I would do the same thing towards North Korea. I would adopt a very strong policy towards the United Nations of dramatically taking on its absurdities. I would explicitly repudiate what Obama has done on Agenda 21 as the kind of interference from the United Nations. There are a number of other areas. I would also, frankly, apply Lean Six Sigma to the Pentagon to liberate the money to rebuild the Navy. We need a capital investment program and this administration is shrinking the Navy to a point where it's going to be incapable of doing its job worldwide.

Ok, well the "Agenda 21" thing is a lunatic conspiracy theory. But Lean Six Sigma? Reagan-John Paul II-Thatcher strategy towards Iran? Also, was that not the softest of softball questions?

You know it would be fun to see some alternative universe where Cain or Gingrich were president. Not to actually live through, of course. More like a 3-D Disney ride.

Shall we wrap this up? CBS did its best to sabotage this debate, from the funereal setting, inept moderation and bizarre split TV and web broadcast. It's a shame because the topic was actually enlightening.

All of the candidates did OK really, within the bounds of things they would say in a Republican presidential debate. Rick Perry didn't do badly and even got a laugh out of the infamous "brain freeze," although his brain unfrozen still isn't all that good at debating. Jon Huntsman actually used facts that were actual facts and not just Gingrich or Bachmann "facts" but he's going nowhere. And of course the ROMNEYBOT 3000 model just keeps beeping away, ready to be rebooted.

In that context, the worst performer of the night was Herman Cain. Having seen him in action more than a few times now, his answers are so formulaic they must come out of a can of Enfamil.

Take this response tonight, when asked, "What is your stance on torture?" Cain clearly isn't prepared for this so just flannels:

I believe that – following the procedures that have been established by our military. I do not agree with torture. Period. However, I would trust the judgment of our military leaders to determine what is torture and what is not torture. That is the critical consideration.

Clear enough? Until Cain gets asked about waterboarding. Ah, says Cain: "I don't see it as torture. I see it as an enhanced interrogation technique."

As for when President Cain will know to overrule his generals, Cain says:

Because I'll have a multiple group of people offering different recommendations, this gives me the best opportunity to select the one that makes the most amount of sense.

In Cain's idea, the president sits in the Oval Office and merely picks from clear set of competing options offered to him. Easy job. Be all over by 10am every morning.

And CBS should be barred from presenting another primary debate for 100 years.