The results thus far in the Republican Primaries seem to me to defy logic and smell of manipulation. Before anyone thinks such a charge odd of me to suggest, consider the following:

McCain, while certainly respected by Republicans, for his service is still probably the most disliked Republican among members of his own party for his stances on everything else but the war. More specifically, his fight against tax cuts, his Al Gore view on Global Warming and certainly not least of all his resoundingly despised legislation on Illegal Alien Amnesty. While Republicans are concerned about the war on Terrorism, McCain has had nothing to do with the success of the surge as he now claims. McCain did nothing more than support Bush's plain for the surge as did every other Republican candidate except Huckabee who was undecided at the time and Ron Paul who believes the US should remain locked within its borders at all costs and at all times no matter what is at stake. This all begs the question as to how it is possible for a candidate who was all but dead 6 months ago because of illegal immigration and is still on the wrong side of virtually every Republican issue, except supporting the surge, to now be a front runner? It defies logic!

Then there is Huckabee an obscure governor and pastor who was unheard of to most of the party and country 6 months ago. However, give him a mike and an audience the charismatic reverend, as most reverends are, tells a whimsical joke and is polite and cuddly and gains notoriety out of a crowded first debate. He presents himself as a conservative basically because of his conservative Baptist views yet his politics are anything but conservative and his record is very left leaning. Huck was a tax raiser and supported in state tuition for illegal aliens. Huck has no foreign policy except that he is "over the target getting flack." He is nowhere near as well versed on global affairs as the adversaries he will face in Putin, Hu Jianto, Assad or even Ahmedidinjad for that matter. In fact doesn't sound somewhat naive and even Ahmedininjad-like for Huck to say he would "Open the Gates of Hell" upon Iran if they had taken one more step closer to our ships in the Gulf. It sounds like bravado not strength of leadership. I mean, when was the last time you heard a Baptist preacher threaten to unleash hell on anyone and do you really think they would do it?

So here again, let's see what we have. Repubs vote for McCain and overlook his Ted Kennedy look-a-like record because of the concern over the war on terror but then Repubs vote for Huck who has no Commander in Chief credentials, no conservative credentials except his religion but he tells a good joke. It defies logic.

Now comes Ron Paul who beat Fred in New Hampshire and Michigan, came in ahead of both Fred and Rudy Michigan and is currently tied with Rudy in South Carolina. Ron Paul has set records for fund raising via the net mysteriously. Even more bizarrely in the after debate text poll of the last Fox news debate, Ron Paul, who appeared to be an out of touch buffoon during the debate, was declared by thousands of texters to have overwhelmingly won the debate. How is this possible for the a candidate who clearly represents the lunatic fringe of the far far far libertarian right. It defies logic.

I think most Republicans would agree that Fred has the best over-all conservative credentials and carries the same views as the vast majority of Republicans but there are concerns about his electability in light of the slowness and lack of aggression to move forward with his campaign.

Then there is Rudy who at one time was a shoe-in nationally and appeared to have the fire to make it happen. No, he wasn't a perfect conservative but he was seen as highly electable polling better in a head to head race with Hillary. Suddenly, however, the Rudy can't seem to get any traction and the mainstream seems out to marginalize him after only three primaries out of 50. Yet he is very much a staunch supporter of the war in Iraq and against terrorism, for lower taxes and securing the border. He is a little wishy-washy on what to do with illegal aliens already here but nowhere near as liberal as McCain. His marginalization defies logic.

Now comes Mitt who has gotten a win, place and show thus far in the primaries. Here again is an imperfect conservative with some questions on electability by conservatives. He is a supporter of the war on terror, wants reduced taxes, is clearly taken a stance against amnesty for illegal aliens, wants to move toward energy independence etc. except he is a Mormon which could hurt him (it shouldn't but could)and he once was pro-choice. Neither of which are bound to be big on the agenda in the national election. Yet even with the most delegates in the primary so far, national polling puts Mitt third behind McCain and Huck. It defies logic.

I cannot understand how it is possible that John McCain and Mike Huckabee can be out front when neither represents what most Republican say they want in a candidate and I find it unfathomable the Ron Paul's candidacy even still exists. I do know there has been a concerted effort on Democratic Blogs (the Daily Kos, Moveon.org and many others) to push Democrats to vote in Republican Primaries for the "fringe candidates" who are defying gravity at the top of the pile in order to muck-up the Republican primary selection. It would also be interesting to know, but probably impossible to learn, how many Democrats have contributed to the Ron Paul, Huck, and McCain campaigns. I'd bet it is a very significant number and I would not be surprised to find some George Soros money in there some where.

I am not into conspiracy theories. I hate such nonsense in fact. However, I do know it seems very very odd that at least two top tier Republican candidates, McCain and Huck, are both so far left of mainstream Republicans that their rise to the top seems to be the stuff of fairy tales. These being fairy tales the Democrats enjoy when they look at who would be the easiest to defeat in November.

Think about this. If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, how is his lack of experience in foreign affairs, economic policy or his stance on immigration policy going to be challenged by Mike Huckabee? It won't. How many northeast or west coast independents will actually vote for a southern Baptist minister? Few. In Huckabee's case their is little change in his prospects even if Hillary gets the nomination. He can form no challenge to her credentials at all.

What if McCain carries the nomination? The only difference between him and Obama is on defense and foreign policy and he has no appeal on any other issue to swing independents, not even for fence sitting Republicans because either way you get higher taxes, more illegal immigrants, no water-boarding key terrorists, a closed Gitmo, US Constitutional rights for enemy combatants and Al Gore Global Warming regulations on business. A McCain against Hillary November contest would see even McCain's defense edge whittled down because at least Hillary voted for the war and she has Billy-Boy in her pocket when ever she needs a boost or change of subject.

It is very peculiar then how those candidates who could pose serious challenges to the Democratic nominee find themselves low on funding, except Mitt, and regulated to being "struggling candidates" by the mainstream media while the bottom of the conservative stack is now on top and the looniest just won't go away because he is flush with cash.

It makes you wonder, doesn't it?