“Then ask the obvious: why are so many FReepers willing to throw rabid support to someone who won’t tell them specifically what he would do if elected?”
His past, both words and deeds. He’s the most conservative, electable candidate we have and to believe otherwise defies rational.
Assigning superlatives based on general, scripted statements and scrying tea leave indicators from a mediocre backbench Senate term is not what I would term "rational".
Rational is: What has the candidate said are his intended policies? Will those policies advance those things I want advanced? Does the candidate have the leadership, executive, and organizational skills to implement those policies? Who is advising him on them? What is his history in advancing them?
Unless and until FT starts outlining his policy agenda, there is no rationality involved in supporting his non-candidacy water-testing. Only emotionalism and blind hope in a White Horse Hero. Right now, his campaign strategy is very little campaign and whole lots of strategy. Anyone who commits to a candidate before knowing exactly what that candidate is going to commit to (or refuse to commit to, which is every bit as telling) is, let's be kind, imprudent.