Oh joy, Jake Tapper is giddy over the upcoming Republican debate: "Let’s draw the contrasts between the candidates, and have them fight it out over these policies, over who has the best approach to Putin, over who has the best approach to taxes, over who believes what over immigration reform...”
Well I'm for whatever makes the candidates better for when they have to debate Shrillary or Biden or whoever it is. But I think Tapper's comment is a tad optimistic. I like most of these candidates well enough but I seriously doubt any of them have any ideas since the Republican party as a whole hasn't had any serious ideas in decades. (Witness the complete lack of interest in healthcare reform both before and after Obamacare.*)
I can't think of a more boring question than "what's the best approach to Putin?" since nobody has an approach to Putin (as evidenced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama, both of whom had at their disposal gigantic mounds of intel and expert advisers, which these current Republican candidates lack. These guys on Putin is like Joe Schmoe in the Peoria bowling alley on Putin.)
Most of the candidates haven't seem to have taken immigration reform seriously in the past (witness Scott Walker's tortured whiplash policy changes) so their answers on that issue could easily be bloviations not worth the oxygen they take up. Taxes, yes, the governors have experience there.
Obama was arguably the worst president we've had in modern times and he also had the least amount of experience going in, so I'm not sure lack of experience is as attractive as people think it to be. Of course one president is anecdotal but I do wonder if a lack of experience (Carter, GWB, Obama) have been generally worse than more experienced hands (Bush I, Reagan). Nixon & LBJ exceptions for sure so I guess there's no real pattern either way.
* - in fairness, Scott Walker has offered some detailed policy positions.