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.
K, I’ll bite who in your opinion is as conservative and electable. (based on past behavior)
Now that is something I do agree with. All the questions you have put forth are real.
Fred has not yet risen to answer those questions.