Excellent ... we're agreed on Peikoff and Rand, then. That's a start. Rand, in particular, is hopelessly emotional and prone to personal attack, smear and hyperbole as suits her mood at the moment.
Conversely, most of Chambers' critique is targeted squarely on the intellectual merit and quality of prose in Rand's epic.
You take umbrage at her voice's being distilled "To the gas chamber -- go!" But you cannot square that response on your part with Rand's clear and unequivocal support for abortion, among other curiously dictatorial and judgmental pronouncements on mankind.
And how could her voice be other than common with militant atheists (of whatever "spiritual" stripe) who must decide for themselves that which is Good and that which is Evil, rather than perceive rightly (and with all due humility for enduring truth and the sanctity of all human life) what Is and Is Not just.
It's Peikoff who manages the commie smear in this instance ... seizing upon a statement he rejects because he cannot understand it for what it is and ignoring entirely the solid and objective indictment of Rand and her truly painful prose.
Feel free to cite the critique yourself as part of your argument against Chambers as shabby intellectual lightweight and secretly-still-commie out to smear Rand.
But you do yourself no favors by relying on the likes of Peikoff or bloggers flinging about Buckley's "foolish Catholicism" (AS IF Buckley were Catholic in the first place!).
Because UNLIKE (perhaps even opposite) random nihilists and hedonists -- she demonstrates that there IS a SPECIFIC objective morality derived from REALITY, and she spells it out in such a way that many people who were never born into a Judaeo-Christian culture (numbering, oh say, about 5 Billion people) have a common starting point (There's an introduction to the objectivist ethics in the first essay in The Virtue of Selfishness).
This confusion on your part may be THE MOST COMMON source of the straw-man and red-herring objections to Ayn Rand. This, plus your justified objections to her temperament, may prejudice you from even considering that she can be, and has been, the source of conversions of tremendous numbers of people, including myself, to the pro-liberty mindset.
While we all must appreciate what the love of life and productivity, however imperfect, that Aquinas Catholics and Presbyterian and Episcopalian Protestants have meant to Western Civilization, an insistence on non-Christians accepting such teachings on blind faith is, to most of them, a nonsense demand that they substitute one randomly-chosen subjectivist ethics for another. Therefore I think we all must also appreciate how those like Rand have not only tried, but succeeded, in convincing millions of non-Christians and pseudo-Christians to appreciate the values of capitalism and freedom when they would have otherwise remained supporters of various forms of socialism, dictatorship and in the U.S. of the DemocRAT party.