Comment: Valid points - here's my view:

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Well... (see in situ)

Valid points - here's my view:

My understanding is that he wasn't allowed to endorse anyone else running against an incumbent republican(don't know if it's true though). In his defense, it may be something he may have regretted agreeing to in the past wayyy before the endorsement(again I'm simply speculating here).

I also would state that the consequences(the presidency) for Dr. Paul FARRR outweighed any possible consequence of a 2nd state nominating Mark Willis instead of reince for chair when he supposedly already had the majority of the votes promised - not much for Mark to gain other than camaraderie. Even if Mark Willis managed to get three states - do you honestly think he stood a chance at winning???

My speculations come because:
When you behave a certain way and tend to vote a certain way, even if it's not the "popular" or "lucrative" thing to do - for thirty years no less, besides my loyalty, I have to give the man the benefit of the doubt.

I didn't mention Rand simply because, though I trust him and believe he sincerely thinks that he thinks his strategy will get him farther politically, I personally & morally couldn't do it.