Republican presidential hopefuls - really Common Sense isn't kidding.

Latest CNN poll of Republican presidential hopefuls has Common Sense wondering.  Really?

Huckabee 19%  OK, so you remember Mr Huckabee from last round where he couldn't get nominated.  But hey, perhaps he's the little engine that could.  In case you forgot here's some of what he had to say last time:

• My faith is my life -- it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them. ... Real faith makes us humble and mindful, not of the faults of others, but of our own. - Really?  Do we need a faith/religious based president?  Oh, and isn't there something about church and state!
• Huckabee teams with Chuck Norris - OK, so I like Chuck Norris but what does this have to do with governance?
• Mr. Huckabee wanted an AIDS quarantine and said homosexuality could "pose a dangerous public health risk!"  Never mind the reality that AIDS is NOT contagious unless you manage to exchange body fluids and, really, homosexuality isn't ever contagious.
• Wanted to get rid of the IRS!  OK, Common Sense is almost tempted to agree as I don't like the IRS any better than anyone else.  But really, how are we supposed to pay for government?

Really, this is one of the leading candidates!  Surely the Republicans have someone better qualified who has some attachment to reality and common sense.

Trump 19% (+9) Now thanks to The Donald we all know this character: sometime successful businessman, reality TV show, tireless self promoter, and, lets not forget, zero experience in government and birther.  OK, so he's not as extreme as Huckabee, excepting the birther nonsense, but mostly his positions aren't known and, did I mention it, NO EXPERIENCE!  It might be worth recalling that former actor Ronald Regan had been governor of California, one of the largest economies in the world, before running for president.  The Donald is no Gipper!  There must be someone better surely.

Palin 12% Momma grizzly and former governor of Alaska is yesterday's news.  Couldn't get elected last time.  Someone had to explain to her that reading was a good idea.  Thinks "creation science," now there's an oxymoron, should be discussed in schools; opposes same sex marriage, opposes abortion including in cases of rape, supports off shore drilling including the the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, and is skeptical of global warming.  While Ms Palin is a more or less reliable source of amusement and does, in fact, have previous political experience she's hardly what one would call a bright policy light.

Oh, I almost forgot, she's a leading Tea Party member.  You know the Tea Party, that's the mob that wanted and almost succeeded in shutting down the Federal Government and is setting itself up for a repeat with the Federal debt ceiling.  Oh, she also applauded The Donald's birther initiative.  Perhaps it's time for the Republicans to just say no to Sarah.

Gingrich 11% (-3) By comparison not such a bad notion.  But only by comparison to some truly bad potential candidates.  Opposes EPA regulation of carbon emissions (never mind global warming), supports a no tax energy policy, pro flex fuel, pro drilling everywhere, opposed Wall Street bailout, opposes health care reform and favors market based health care, and actually has real substantive experience with government.

OK, Common Sense has to admit that Mr Gingrich isn't anywhere near as bad as the leaders.  But, his positions are clearly well right of center.  Common Sense isn't comfortable with that.

Romney 11% (-7) Tried once and didn't get elected.  Actually a closet centrist with right leanings.  Has real experience in politics as the former governor of Massachusetts but no federal experience.  Still and all a fairly reasonable candidate on the facts.  But he's 61 points down thanks to the Tea Party's influence so it's not at all clear is he can get nominated.  If nominated we'll all enjoy a truly interesting election cycle.

Paul 7% (-1) Twice failed presidential candidate.  An even better source of news than Ms Palin though, sadly, not so much in the news these days.  Principled but extreme and clearly can't get nominated.

Bachmann 5% (+5) If ignoring facts and just plain lying would do it Ms Bachmann would win the nomination handily.  Even so this Tea Party favorite is completely and utterly unelectable, as well she should be.

Daniels 3%, Pawlenty 2% (-1), Santorum 2% (-1), Barbour * (-1) OK, I know these folks are running but much as they think they may be real presidential material they're clearly not real presidential candidates.  Perhaps they are running for VP?

So there's the current Republican field with two candidates that might be electable, three that are so far to the extreme radical right that it's not clear that even the Tea Party activist can get them nominated and if they were they couldn't get elected, and five also ran candidates that aren't serious candidates for anything but VP.

But here's the puzzling thing, in an environment where Mr Obama is almost certainly vulnerable why is the Republican party spending so much energy on so many potential candidates that are almost entirely unelectable?  Why have moderate and progressive Republicans ceded conservative control to the extreme radical right?

Common Sense believes that absent a centrist political party there needs to be a reasoned balance between conservatives and liberals in Congress.  It's important that the Republicans don't let their party be overrun by the Tea Party extremest.