I have tremendous respect for your views. Frankly, my personal belief is more in line with your legal interpretation and vision for the future.
However, I am disappointed that you would weigh in publicly like this. The internecine bickering that has exploded in recent days is not helpful. You have expressed your opinion and advice respectfully and eloquently, but liberty-oriented candidates criticizing each other - even when it's done respectfully - can help fuel that bickering.
Among some of the more extreme, knee-jerk reactions I've seen have been demands for campaign contribution refunds and public disclosure of those demands. The name-calling (e.g., "neocon," "Rudy Giuliani hacked Rand's website," "traitor") has often been vicious. All of this is destructive.
As a respected liberty-oriented candidate, you have sway in the movement. When you speak, people listen. And when you publicly criticize another candidate, regardless of your appropriate tone and good intentions, you provide cover to the destructive reactions of those who have unrealistic expectations that liberty-oriented candidates will be "perfect."
You are certainly entitled to your views, and have the right to express them. I just don't think this is the responsible approach when looking at the movement's big picture.
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views...Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. - SCotUS, 1995