Last Tuesday as I was sharing my thoughts on Twitter during the second presidential debate, I noticed frequent updates from the Cato Institute. Like Heritage, Cato reguarly tweets about its policy work. But what made Cato’s debate coverage special was the instant reaction from its analysts.

Rather than wait until after the debate to comment on the candidates’ policy proposals, Cato’s manager of new media, Christopher Moody, put the libertarian think tank’s policy experts to work right away. The result was instantaneous and informative analysis. The experiment was such a success that Cato plans to replicate it tonight.

By my count, Cato provided 44 updates on Twitter during the 90-minute debate. Its Twitter team included Jerry Taylor, a senior fellow for energy policy and environmental protection; Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies; and Jagadeesh Gokhale, senior fellow for economics and expert on entitlement reform.

Here’s a sampling of what they wrote:

• Did Sen. McCain answer the question about Social Security? I’d say no. –Jagadeesh Gokhale 09:44 PM
• McCain calls for Medicare commission. Finally, something worthwhile. -Michael Cannon 09:43 PM
• If Reagan fixed Social Security, why are we still having the conversation? -Michael Cannon 09:42 PM
• Obama’s health plan would outlaw the most affordable 50 percent of health insurance plans currently on the market. -Michael Cannon 09:42 PM
• Need to understand the rest of the tax code to fix Social Security? Dissemblobama at its best! –Jagadeesh Gokhale 09:41 PM
• The $700 billion financial-sector bailout is less than one percent of the amount required to bail out Medicare. -Michael Cannon 09:39 PM
• A question about unfunded federal liabilities! Who would have thought? -Jerry Taylor 09:39 PM

Is this groundbreaking policy research? No, but it’s not meant to be. Cato is instead investing in real time reaction to the candidates’ answers. This certainly raises the level of discourse on Twitter and introduces Cato’s ideas to an audience that might otherwise not pay any attention.

Staffers searching for policy solutions still turn to Washington’s think tanks for answers. But unlike 30 years ago, there are more voices and countless new ways (such as video) to educate lawmakers. The 24-hour news cycle can also quickly shift a congressional debate over legislation. Failure to respond in a timely fashion can leave you in the dust.

This is where your policy experts play a vital role. These analysts have so much to offer it’s foolish not to take advantage. At most organizations, they’re probably already doing radio and TV interviews to promote their research. At others they might write op-eds to get the word out. But there’s something else they should be doing: blogging.

This past week is a perfect example. With news reports changing by the hour on Capitol Hill about the financial bailout bill, it was difficult to produce a comprehensive policy paper. Analysts at the libertarian Cato Institute were faced with this predicament. But rather than sit on the sidelines, Cato’s analysts turned to their blog. Here’s a quote from David Boaz, executive vice president, in yesterday’s Washington Post:

The talk in the halls and via the virtual water-cooler of e-mail is, “What can you write? Do you have an op-ed?” Boaz says. “Do you have a study? Is there even time for a study? . . . Op-eds and blog items are the best you’re getting.”

Some think tanks approach this differently than others. The Cato-at-Liberty blog features some of the institute’s top policy analysts. The Center for American Progress, on the other hand, relies mostly on a staff of researchers. We’ve embraced something of a hybrid at Heritage’s Foundry: Conn Carroll is a full-time blogger with frequent contributions from policy analysts on their areas of expertise.

There’s no right or wrong way to do it. In fact, this is a great forum to debate the pros and cons of all these approaches.

One thing that’s important to remember is the difference between a detailed policy paper a quick blog post. The former is still very much essential to having a significant impact on Capitol Hill. The latter, however, is rapidly becoming a way to shape a narrative and remain relevant. An strategy that includes both is likely going to the most effective.