My point was rand is neither ideal nor evil, kindof like Gail I suppose. Ron Paul was ideal, he was Howard Roark, understanding and keeping to the structure of his truth, he was Hank Reardon fusing together a coalition which could not have developed were it not for him, he was Fransico d'Anconia seeking to dismantle the wealth f power in the 'government' he was a member of, he was John Galt never betraying his own principles. Ron Paul is a nearly fictional character in how ideal he was to serve as president, a hero.
What likely turns ppl off about Rand who like his father is Rand's political career is not as heroic, no Rand is not perfect, he is a regular man. But i see him as a very moral person and that is the standard for me. He promised to endorse the gop candidate prior to being elected, by doing so he has gained influence and doners that he likely could not have gotten had he gone back on his promise and pissed off the gop. If he didnt endorse the nominee do you think his filabister would have been supported by his fellow republicans? I doubt it they would have ended it with a majority vote before it began.
I think partisan politics is stupid but i cant blame rand for allowing the media to paint the picture that he is playing into partisanship, by doing so he has furthered his father's message to the even more mainstream and not even in an election cycle. I applaud his work and reserve the right to change my opinion of him if he turns put to be anti liberty, he has yet to do that though.