BIGM, thanks for the response, but I don't see the two situations as being very similar at all. In an attempt at fairness, while Sahd did lead the Straw poll most of the night, it was not as if Mr. Smucker's numbers went in a straight line down and stayed there. If you read the paper from that night Mr. Smucker's numbers were: 1) Leading for two rounds; 2) Close for two rounds; 3) Had a 10-15 vote spread; and THEN 4) Came back to within 4 votes; before the final tally which was I believe ~15 votes. So why the fluctuations? I'd state the obvious, because the vote count was being manipulated by Mr. Thibault's committee people, and it is THEY, not Mr. Smucker for whom you should have your wrath against.
From my reading, I would suggest that Mr. Smucker and Mr. Sahd had a fairly "equal" group of core supporters during the night, but it was Mr. Thibault's "throwing votes" to either candidate that lead to the fluctuations. Mr. Smucker believes that, as does Chairman Dumeyer who were both quoted in the paper. Furthermore, Mr. Sahd stated that he and Mr. Smucker had no deal. Thus, put yourself in Mr. Smucker's shoes, he feels the votes being manipulated, his vote tallies are going up and down. What would you do? More importantly, I have been told that it was Manheim Township, Mr. Sahd's committee, that shut the convention down? Why? I think if you asked them they would also state it was because of Thibault manipulations.
Which leads us to Mr. Thibault, who I think has to be jumping up and down that Mr. Sahd's supporters are going negative on Mr. Smucker. He'd probably rather have them focusing on his manipulations at the convention rather on his record of increased taxes, borrowing, and flipping his nose at the Republican Party. More specifically, we have (or had) two great candidates in Mr. Sahd and Mr. Smucker. Both of whom earnestly sought the party's endorsement, how much is Mr. Thibault smiling when their groups are fighting? I would suggest we would do better focusing on Mr. Thibault's record, his aspirations for the 13th job (a stepping stone for Congress?), and why we believe at age ~60, he is the right person to be our Senator (does anyone believe he will be up there in his 70s). Let's stop bickering and form together as a party to direct our anger to the person whom eagerly blocked the endorsement, Mr. Thibault..

Really? Did Smucker, when questioned by the committees during the straw poll presentations, promise not to run without the party's endorsement? A simple yes or no answer would suffice.

You seem to know more then me, so I will ask you. My understanding from the committee people I talked to was that he stated he wouldn't run against an "endorsed candidate." BIG DIFFERENCE. If you have information otherwise, please share. Otherwise, the innuendo is only helping Mr. Thibault, the REAL problem at the endorsement convention. I trust people who are supporting Smucker or Thibault but wanted an endorsement don't lose sight of that.

Paul Thibault proved what kind of tax-and-spend politician he is during his two terms as County Commissioner, when both spending and debt more than doubled. He also was the driving force behind the overly-expensive Youth Detention/Intervention Center on Sunnyside (which was a direct slap in the face to a fellow Republican, Lancaster mayor Charlie Smithgall.

Thibault also helped create, then guarantee, the taxpayer-financed hotel and convention center project. This violates every single Republican principle there is, including lower taxes, smaller government, and private initiative.

I didn't think you would answer a direct question. The "big difference" that so influences your ethics applies to personality types who also agonize over the definition of the word "is". I honestly do not expect you to understand as your brain, and mine, work differently.

The main reason for a political party to exist is to properly vet candidates, and to offer their loyal party voters "endorsements" to allow them to vote knowing that their favorite party is offering candidates in tune with the principles of the party.

Smucker was not properly vetted, nor was he respectful of the party when he chose, for his own selfish personal benefit, to force the entire voting district to have an open primary.