It's gibberish to assume you know how Rand's critics come to their conclusions. It's not even worth saying. Maybe you are too young to realize that yet.
You know how I know how they think? Because I read what they write! Gee whiz, amazing eh?
I don't need a lecture from you
No, you really do. Rand may be an unknown quantity to you, but he's not an unknown quantity for anyone who's done their homework.
Rand's votes don't reveal enough about him, as far as I'm concerned. He has pandered to neocons and voted for sanctions on Iran
Hmm, I don't follow your reasoning. His votes don't reveal enough about him, but you're comfortable judging him on the basis of his vote on the Iran sanctions. So..which is it? His votes reveal his true nature or not? Because it seems to me (just, seems to me), that you're perfectly willing to judge him on the basis of a handful of votes, while ignoring (because you are ignorant of?) everything else he's done...precisely the problem I was commenting on.
What ideology does he embrace
What ideology is expressed by the bills he's sponsored? Have you looked at them?
So is he a real neocon or a panderer who's just trying to blend in until he can break out and reveal his inner freedom crusader?
Um, he's already "broken out," and you would know this if you'd look at his record: the whole record, not just the handful of votes (none of it on legislation he sponsored) that the anti-Rand faction likes to talk about. Go to his website, click on "about," click on "sponsored legislation." Scroll down. Read.
He turned his back on his own father by endorsing Romney while his dad was still in the race
He endorsed Romney after his Dad officially announced that he could not win the nomination. If you think Ron and Rand weren't cooperating then, and aren't still cooperating now, you're a bigger fool than you've led me to believe.