If there's one thing a libertarian can't stand and won't tolerate, it's philosophical inconsistency. They don't tolerate it in other people and they don't tolerate it in themselves. Most libertarians are hard pressed to produce an adequate answer to the charge. But the libertarians' trouble in answering the question lies not in an inherent hypocrisy, but in their narrow view of the role elected officials play in our society. This myopic view is also, in my opinion, the fundamental reason that libertarians haven't had any credible success in electoral politics.
Libertarians tend to approach elections as simply a mass policy debate.
Whoever has the best ideas is supposed to win. Whoever can defend their position most rationally, most consistently, and most abstractly, is supposed to win. As 20 years of libertarian campaigns have proven over and again, this is absurd. But it hasn't yet dawned on the libertarian movement as a whole that the reason they aren't winning elections has nothing to do with their ideas and rhetoric. It's because the other candidates know that a politician is more than a policy analyst, much more.