David over at Blue Carp has a post defending Libertarians, in advance, just in case a Big-L candidate draws off enough votes from a Republican to give the election to the Donk. Until the Libertarians become big enough to field a serious candidate, they would be better served by working within the Republican party to pick more acceptable candidates at the primary level. This is the position the Tea Party finds itself in, and who do you think went further towards realizing the Libertarian agenda of small, limited government?
That said, the Republicans owe it to their constituents to support the popularly selected candidates wholeheartedly. As the line went:"Sure she's a witch, but she's our witch, and we want her in office." Yes, I know, fliers happen, as when David Duke, a lifelong Democrat and Klansman, couldn't get the party to back him in the governors race in Louisiana, so he ran as a Republican, the party having no significant presence in the state to stop him at that time. Someone has to make the call whether to strongly support someone who might be a weak candidate, or to let a whack job sink or swim on his own. Michael Steele? Hah!
If ever there was a chance to get amendments passed, or at least on the ballot, for things like a runoff between the two top vote-getters in the event no one draws over 50% (state level), federal congressional term limits, or a federal TABOR, now would be it.
Is there a window for circulation of petitions, or can we start now and turn them in in July of 2012? Not being much of an activist, I'm not familiar with the procedure.
Any Libertarian, or starting now, Tea Partier worthy of his rhetoric should be out there, clipboard in hand, gathering signatures. Polls indicate that federal term limits are favored by some 75% of the voting population, so this should be easy, yet I never see such a proposal. Certainly the public is ready to impose some limits on the government.