I think part of that caving is due to Obummer buffaloing professional political wimps with the threat of a government shutdown.
That is because Dems would then make much noise blaming it all on the GOP.

A political party has to present the public with concrete proposals for legislation that implements its values. On many issues (as shown repeatedly here in the Gulch), Objectivists agree that our current laws are terrible, but there is little agreement about how they should be replaced. Immigration, intellectual property and federal-state relations are examples of such issues.

This being the case, an Objectivist political party would have to either remain silent on such issues or face public repudiation by Objectivists who disagree with the party’s proposals. Either situation would doom an Objectivist party to becoming a marginal player in the political process.

I would add that a successful Donald Trump is the end of the republican party as described, and they know it. He is self funding, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, pro-business, "make America Great again", with smart work. If successful, all of the cronies that have bought influence and feathered their beds will have to compete in legitimate business activities. Can you imagine the house of Morgan approaching banking with a succeed or parish model, rather than do what we do and fix it later?

I read an article yesterday by a former Bush cabinet member that stated "they would kill him before they allowed him to be President". William Bennett,

I tend to agree with that. It is now the financial-military-industrial complex running things, and they will not be denied. They have been stuffing ballot boxes and fixing things since the days of Grover Cleveland.

It doesn't matter to them who wins, as long as they are controllable. Hillary is just a s good as JEB, Marco, or the others. Trump is self funding and uncontrollable. He could prosecute the former Attorney General, President, Secretary of State, and others and not be called down. That could lead to terrible disruption and perhaps legal exposure for the modern day robber barons.

The Libertarian Party was loosely formed in very early 70's resulting from the student riots across the univerities.

Only "terrorists" can defeat current "money politics."
(That would be the label placed on anyone who effectively opposed the statist money politics.)

Amazing, look what got started, Good!

Yes it is always about the dollar, but that being said, it is truly about much much more than that!

Impuco the reason is that not enough people have read AYN RAND.

It was originally started at Brooklyn College under the name of "ad hoc committee against student terrorism". We are moving forward but it needs to be done one mind at a time so the basic principles are clear and consistent

There used to be a political movement very similar to the libertarians (and yes, I know they are not strictly Objectivists) called the Blue Dog Democrats. They were the socially liberal and fiscally conservative politicians - many from the heartland. They got pushed out as the Democratic Party shifted towards hard-core Progressivism, which it is now. They might provide the base from which to build from, but it is going to take significant effort.

The current political landscape looks like this:
1. The Democratic Party. It's pretty much the Progressive party, as that is their ideology. It is very socialist in nature, advocating for more social spending, higher taxes, and a burgeoning debt. It's self-destructive, so all I can conclude is that these people are out to get their millions while they can and then retreat as the world burns, or they somehow have persuaded themselves that they'll escape the onrushing tsunami caused by their irresponsibility. The one thing that can be said is that this is a solid group who marches in lock-step and rarely defies their leadership.
2. The Republican Party. It's a mish-mash of Progressives (aka RINO's) and moderates. Because there is no single ideology, they rarely if ever can get anything done in force. And because the leadership is mostly RINO's who are more scared of the media than their constituents, they rarely stand up on the principles they campaigned on. It's a fairly inept group.
3. Outliers within the Republican Party. These are the Tea Party-types like Ted Cruz and the Libertarians like Rand Paul. They are pariahs even though they have an (R) next to their name and frequently raise the hackles on their RINO brethren. They are more Anti-Democrats than Republicans, however, as they aren't willing to go along with the Republican masses and instead choose to stand on principle.

That's pretty much it. You may have some local races which include a Green Party candidate, a Constitution Party candidate, a Libertarian Party candidate and a few others, but their cache is pretty limited, as is their financial backing.

But here's the real reason why there is no Objectivist Party: there's no money. Politics is all about money (unfortunately) - not ideology. It's the reason why people like George Soros dabble, and the reason why the Clinton Foundation has spent 8 years building up a slush fund of hundreds of millions: they know that money is the key to elections. It's the key to the media (aside from being a Progressive).

The Libertarian Party was founded in 1972 by men who were, for the most part, serious students of Objectivism. Its platform contained not a single provision that an Objectivist would oppose. Its first Presidential candidate, John Hospers, wrote a campaign book which quoted Rand's works (with footnotes) hundreds of times.

I can't speak for what the LP has become after 45 years of existence, but in the beginning it was certainly "a party based on true Objectivist thinking."

(Yes, I know Rand hated and denounced the LP from the start. I stand by my opinion.)

Simply because there arent enough objectivists to appreciate it. Romney was mostly right about 47% of the populace just want freebies- but he was wrong about the percentage. Its much higher

Because a large proportion of the population are moochers.

We would be better off reforming the GOP from the inside. More momentum and less work this way. A third party has a very slim chance of working. We just need to convince our fellow citizens of the right ways.

The answer is that politics is a derivative of ethics, which is based on metaphysics and epistemology. If you would win the political battles, you must fight the philosophical war first.

"Politics is based on three other philosophical disciplines: metaphysics, epistemology and ethics—on a theory of man’s nature and of man’s relationship to existence. It is only on such a base that one can formulate a consistent political theory and achieve it in practice. When, however, men attempt to rush into politics without such a base, the result is that embarrassing conglomeration of impotence, futility, inconsistency and superficiality which is loosely designated today as “conservatism.” . . ."
“Choose Your Issues,” The Objectivist Newsletter, Jan, 1962, 1
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/con...

Not as much activity as I thought would happen, interesting.

I think it's because Objectivism philosophy does not tolerate compromises and politics is about compromises.

To my thinking, as a casual reader of AR, any Objectivist elements in public policy would be steps in the right direction. I can't speaker for hardcore Objectivists, but it seems some of them actually want bad policies either to bring about a flood myth scenario or at least to confirm the narrative that the world does not respect achievement so there's no point in participating in society.

Because we are living Atlas Shrugged. The Fountainhead has passed and with it any semblance of justice. A political solution is a lost cause with the great majority of those claiming to be Objectivists willing to keep voting for the GOP evil instead of the Dem evil.