You can't climb a mountain by starting at the top.
Everyone seems to be obsessed with the "bright, shiny object" of the Presidency. And to a lesser (but still greatly excessive) extent with Congress and other public offices.
So much so that they never see all the low-hanging fruit, ripe for the picking - things like precinct committee seats & local/state party positions.
And if they do see it - or have it pointed out to them - they dismiss it because plucking it might require them to associate with a bunch of "nasty GOP scumbags" (or some such thing).
So they retreat into (relatively) friendly & welcoming venues like the Libertarian Party, where never they hear a discouraging word, and all the echoes are of voices that agree with them on (just about) everything.
The voting public and the possible neocon delegates in reserve disagree with you. We are an irate minority.
So are the people who actually go out and participate in their local & state parties - regardless of whether they are "pro" or "anti" Ron Paul.
The vast majority of Republicans (and Democrats) do nothing more than vote in general elections. Fewer vote in primaries, and of those who do, fewer still take any part at all in the dull, boring hum-drum of month-to-month party business. Thus, an irate minority can acquire & exercise *enormous* influence - *far* more influence than will *ever* be achieved by those who insist on trying to use 3rd parties
to achieve electoral succes.
Those who prefer to go the 3rd-party route with purposes OTHER than achieving electoral success are doing fine. There are many important things they can work on and accomplish - education, promotion, waking people up, etc. Unfortunately, significant & maintainable electoral success just isn't one of those things. If getting libertarians voted into public office is at the top of your liberty movement "todo" list, then "insurging" the GOP is pretty much the only viable option.
I believe that most people will vote for a liberty-minded Republican over a Libertarian 9 times out of 10. The two parties have huge financial, legal, and psychological advantages over third parties: so much so, that I think it is easier overcome the obstacles within the Republican Party than to win elections from within a third party.
Just my two cents.
That bit alone is worth a lot more than just two cents.
What you said would be just as true if the "liberty-minded Republican" and the "Libertarian" that you mention had *exactly* the same beliefs & positions on *everything*.
The Republican "brand" has social credibility. The Libertarian "brand" does not.
That sucks. That *really* sucks - and it sucks *hard*. But things are what they are.