Here I think we're focusing down to some swirl of personalities, hypocrisy and general weirdness that will be the 2008 presidential battle. Last we met Bob Jones III he was feting then-candidate George W. Bush and identifying Mormons as members of a non-Christian "cult." Today Jones endorsed Romney, the man he believes is a cultist, saying ...

"This is all about beating Hillary. And I just believe that this man has the credentials both personally and ideologically in terms of his view about what American government should be to best represent the rank and file of conservative Americans. If it turns out to be Guiliani and Hillary we've got two pro choice candidates, and that would be a disaster."

Andrew Sullivan says this is an example of how Republicans will rally by uniting in opposition to Hillary. And I don't doubt that is and will prove to be true. But I think the Grand Inquisitor protests too much.

Look at the simple logic of his statement and it's clearly not "all about beating Hillary." The polls, at least for the moment, show that, head to head, Rudy does much better against HIllary than Romney. Name recognition may be the big factor there; Romney may be able to catch up there. And polls that give GOP voters the choice, show a substantial minority opting for a spoiler third party candidate.

But I don't think Jones is arguing for an electoral bank shot. He's saying that Rudy vs. Hillary, in itself, would be a disaster. Not because Rudy would lose the GOP base and elect Hillary. I don't think that's what he's saying. He's saying that Rudy has to be beaten. He's simply not acceptable as the Republican standard-bearer -- which makes sense since he opposes the Fundamentalists on the key issues that make them Republicans.