Agreed about the primaries. For events of such consequence they see a surprisingly low turnout, even among “conservatives” that really ought to know better!
May I suggest a different methodology for looking for strong horses for primaries, to put a big effort behind, and it’s not like the world thinks.
I saw a useful illustration just the other night. I won’t name the freeper, but he wanted to see a stark hero, in black and white contrast. And fooey on anyone else.
I actually agree but with a twist on it. Look not for the politician who projects a worldly glamor image (not everyone can be a movie cowboy, which was part of Ronald Reagan’s fortuitous appeal as he yeehawed onto the country’s stage with an optimism that Jimmy Carter’s malaise was tailor made to be a foil to).
Look for the politician who has done something of personal consequence on account of God. Even if it seems partly misguided. In that light, with 20/20 hindsight, if I could get into a time machine and wasn’t hobbled by pesky reality’s need to be self consistent, I’d be hollering in 2012 for primary support for either Newt Gingrich or Michelle Bachmann, if Sarah Palin would not step in. Yes, Newt was a womanizer who even flirted with Nancy Pelosi and some of her batty ideas. And yes, Michelle Bachmann had problems with recurrent migraines (as best I recall). But with their respective faiths, they could have now been serving as dynamite presidents, with the dynamite being their God, not their worldly personas. Womanizers? How about King Solomon? Or frequently ill? How about Timothy in the early church? Trials and even failures can be for the good as well as the ill, depending on one’s viewpoint upon the divine.
We need a "Billy Graham" to run in 2016!