I would respectfully disagree.

I, for one, am not calling for another Reagan or waxing nostalgically for them olden days. I am a small business owner who aligns with the Republican party because it is closer to what I see as a correct way to govern. Is it perfect? No, it is not. Is it better than the Democrats? I think so.

As far as being ignorant of the real world of which you speak I would heartily disagree. I am part owner of a small trucking company and am acutely aware of jobs, unemployment, fuel costs, immigration and outsourcing. These are not the doing of the Republican party but are changes we could have expected with global trade, an ever intrusive government and the anti-business regulatory atmosphere. Why hassle with regulations here when you can outsource?

So back to the original question, who destroyed the Republican party? No one, it's not dead and far from it. It is going through changes and adjusting to the new realities you speak of and adjusting quite nicely. Since we basically have a split government how anyone can call it dead is beyond me.

Wake me up when you see the GOP promoting "free market ideals." Crony capitalism and corporate welfare are not congruent with "free market ideals."

The other part is the real world that they ignore so assiduously.

Oh really?

I happen to be registered GOP only that I can vote in my state's primary. I am neo-libertarian... or classical liberal. In 1980, I voted for Jon Anderson.

What I reject, assiduously, is partisans telling me that I have to view life, the world, through their biased prism.

...and those earlier decades that so many conservatives like to point out as exemplars of what America ought to be like.

Everybody points out past times that fit within their prism as the 'best of times'. They also flatly ignore all those aspects that are particularly unsavory to their preferred narrative. Such is life.

When people do find a job often it is at a lower salary than their previous one...

No better example of the 'progressive' mindset. Sorry pal, but the only thing that ought to guarantee one a higher pay is ones own ability. I'm sure in antiquity the former successful hunter was afforded respect, and due consulting fees if his services proved fruitful sure, but his previous stature, and likely failing body did not earn him higher 'pay'. My how the left tries to pretend the free market does not exist.

When Republican candidates tell them it just isn't so or that nothing should be done so the free market can take care of it it's often another vote lost.

That may be true. But I'd submit that when hell has gone in a handbasket, Global warming or even fascist evil American Christian benign jihadist takeover, the surviviors will reconstitute civilization first on confiscatory threat (ala Dems) and then upon free market ideals. The later will always triumph.

As James Joyner noted, the real world has changed tremendously since Reagan was first elected. He didn't even go into globalization and off-shoring but they exist and they affect people and their attitudes. You think people don't notice when they call Yahoo support, AT&T support, Dell or their bank and it's obvious the person they're talking to isn't in the U.S.? You think they don't notice that the people in the back at McDonald's don't speak a word of English? It has changed even more from the '50s and those earlier decades that so many conservatives like to point out as exemplars of what America ought to be like. In the current real world even highly skilled people who lose their jobs can take far longer to find a job than their unemployment benefits last. But the Republicans always blame the person and increasing the amount of unemployment benefits and the length of time they are received are anathema to them. Much of the time if a job is lost businesses have very exacting criteria for openings they want to fill and those exacting standards serve primarily as an excuse to offshore, use an H-1B visa or make the pay lower for an "unqualified" candidate. When people do find a job often it is at a lower salary than their previous one and there's another consumer who isn't going to be fueling the economy nearly as much as they used to. Many people know this and others sense it at some level. When Republican candidates tell them it just isn't so or that nothing should be done so the free market can take care of it it's often another vote lost.

You have a lot more faith in Clinton than I do.

No, yaJohn, I just have such little faith in McCain.

Judges - I see McCain appointing people such as O'Conner and Kennedy - people that would earn him his coveted NYTimes praise.

Military - Sure McCain would treat them better, but a President Rodham-Clinton would do with them what her advisor's recommend - she can conveniently blame Bush for the mess she would find herself in.

Furthermore, any outright aggression by any party you listed, not only justifies Bush's foreign policy, but galvanizes world support against a belligerent. The concern I have regards a mosquito tactic such as Iran seems to be deploying presently. To this, I don't think any likely candidate will respond appropriately.

Spending - No, Clinton would not be as good a watchdog as McCain. But we've got to take Congress into account. That is why I mentioned blue-dogs. Just as with her husband, a President Rodham-Clinton would force a vigilance (one that has been lacking under Bush) upon Congress.

But ultimately, both McCain and Clinton cause me to fear for the health of the nation - I do not trust either to subjugate their egos to do what is best. As such, I'd rather an open fight against Clinton rather than pretend support of McCain.

He also wasn't a fiscal conservative or, despite the rhetoric, a small government conservative. In my view he was an anti-Communist who believed in a more federal system or “devolution” as it's sometimes called.

Real small government conservatives have never had any real influence in the Republican Party at the national level. Nostalgizing Ronald Reagan doesn't change that.

Also, they failed to control the government. They should have hard the career bureaucrats in front of Congressional Committees and forced them to answer the hard question about the continued failures of the government. Instead, they let the Patrick Henry college and Regent University graduates in the Bush Administration commit one stupid mistake after another.

Look at how Bush, Hastert, and Frist failed to do anything that could be describe as conservative put instead grew the government and went down the road to creating a police state.

The stupidity of the immigration reform was the last straw in demonstrating the stupidity of the modern Republican Party.

However, in the long run, there will be no recovery for the Republicans because the Hispanic and black populations are growing so much faster than the white population, there will come a time in the near future when the Republicans will be incapable of getting a majority in most elections.

"...how would we ever convince the RNC to come up with an actual conservative in the next election?

At some point, the price must be paid for moving us so far off the principles of the Republicans.
The time for that price to be paid may or may not be this cycle.

I say,

Voting for a RINO merely enables and encourages them to do more of the same to conservatives. Any chances of getting them back to being conservatives would be about the same as the chances of the country returning to mass chastity after it tolerated the sexual revolution!

The GOP is sadly in need of a twelve step program - Big Tent RINO worship, is like handing needles to addicts and expecting a cure.

You have a lot more faith in Clinton than I do.

Do you really think she would appoint as conservative of judges (at all levels) than McCain?

Are you so sure she wouldn't go back to the 90's Clinton administration view of soldiers (read up on how some of the generals were treated by the Clinton staff).

Are you so sure that we won't go back to the Clinton view that terrorism is a police matter, not the subject of a war?

Would you really rather have Clinton at the helm if Iran nuked Israel, North Korea nuked/invaded South Korea, Red China invaded Taiwan, etc.

Do you really think Clinton would be a better spending watchdog than McCain?

The list goes on. Is McCain the perfect example of a modern conservative? No, but he is a lot better than Clinton.

These guys are, by Republican [my wishful] standards, the canaries in the coal mines, signaling to their party "y'all have a problem and need to disinvest from some of your prior ideas. They don't sell."

You're right 'nost, they don't sell... to a die-heart lib. Only McCain is planning upon die-heart libs voting for him. Hence some of his positions.

On any issue that Rush, Peggy or Billy can bring up to ding any leading republican candidate, can they honestly argue that the democrat would be better?

That is not the argument y.a.John. It is that as far as we can tell, based upon prior history and rhetoric, the difference on key issues is minimal.

With McCain (and here I agree with our host, Huckabee has very little chance, thus he is ignored) I have very little faith that he will listen to his base. In fact, I think he is more motivated by his real constituency - the MSM.

As worrisome as McCain/Kennedy I was, its illiberal genesis is even more so. A major bill worked out behind closed doors - excluding the very Congress that was needed to pass it - and placed for vote in less that 24 hours after initial airing? Gang of 14? Spin that all you want, Roberts and Alito would have still been approved, but a whole host of lesser court nominees would not have been thrown under the bus.

Tax cuts, McCain/Feingold, coercive interrogation, anthropogenic global warming, the list goes on.

On several key issues, McCain's position is indistinguishable from the left, on several key issues, McCain's positions arrogantly ignore/refute the views of his 'base'. On only two key issues that he is pretty damn good.

But rhetoric aside, Hillary is smart enough to shift on prosecuting the war against jihadism once elected. And there are enough blue-dogs around that can shame the GOP on spending. In other words, I'd rather outright oppose Hillary than pretend to support the Maverick.