There is a debate raging in Townhall, on other sites, and in fact throughout the places where political junkies of all stripes hang out.  The debate is, how do you kill a party, specifically, what of two paths is the recipe for disaster for the Republican Party? 

One side of the debate says that to compromise iron clad principles is the beginning of the end, that for the party to accept and support Senators like Specter (as Bush did in 04) and candidates like Guiliani (who is liberal on gun control, social issues, and some other things based on his NYC record).  According to this side, it is worth it to purge the party of RINOs who do harm to America while wearing the Republican jacket, even if this leads to short term election defeats, though most of them do not think this will lead to defeat.

On the other side, we have the group that says that compromise is the key to success, that some things must be given up in order to win the general election.  This is the group that thinks we lost in 06 because we were too conservative, we drove out minorities, moderates, and disaffected Democrats who would have voted for us had we moderated our views.  According to this side, the Big Tent is the lesson of Reagan, the lesson spurned by Goldwater in 64, and by the California Republicans after Pete Wilson.

So who is right?  I would like to look at California as our political petrie dish:

1) Tom McClintock:  In the Wednesday Sacramento Bee, McClintock is profiled as the driving force holding the State Senate Republicans together to oppose the bloated state budget.  He is called a "Rock Ribbed Republican" and the "Conscience of the State Republican Party" and is honored for his 21 years of consistency in standing up to the Democrats and to the Governor and other Liberal Republicans who would probably like him to just go away.  They also point out he has lost all four of his statewide elections, and attribute this to his "extreme" conservatism.  http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/290599.html

2) Arnold Schwartzenegger:  For the two years after his election, he ran as a fairly conservative governor.  He did some things, such as authorize state funded stem cell research, and spending way too much, that tweaked Republicans, but ran as a mostly conservative leader.  06 changed that.  He won his reelection against the inept Phil Angelides easily, but all of his "Conservative ballot measures" intended to shuffle the way state government worked, failed.  At this point, he gave up and began to run the state in a manner indistinguishable from his Democratic predecessor Gray Davis.  So he is called a Republican, but in almost all meaningful measures, he is a Democrat.  And don't forget he is 2 for 2 in winning statewide elections.  

So which is worse, the Republican who wins but is clearly a RINO, or the Republican who loses and stays on topic?  Most Republicans ask WWRD (What Would Reagan Do?).  

Reagan was a hard core Goldwater Conservative.  He did not win by running as a centrist, he won by making conservatism sound more appealing.  He then governed hard right, but did so in a manner that was genial and tough simultaneously.  He compromised when he nominated Sandra Day O Connor to the Supreme Court.  He compromised on spending bills.  But he held strong on tax cuts and pushed the country far further than it wanted to go on National Defense.  He compromised when choosing Bush as his VP (Bush came up with the term Voodoo Economics and was never a believer in the Cut Taxes First premise.), but was tough when ending Airline and other strikes.  He had some principles he never compromised, others he could play with to placate liberals.  He had a policy of never speaking ill of a Republican, yet he removed Cabinet Members who opposed him.  

So how does this relate?  Some have said we will never see another Reagan.  You could also say we will never see another Woodrow Wilson, LBJ, or Nixon.  Each president is unique, and how they face the issues of their time is a poor predictor of how they would face the issues of our time.  So what we need at the National Level is not Reagan, but is a (1) Committed Conservative with (2) a plan of action, with (3) the articulation skills to spread his message infused with optimism and hope, and (4) the negotiating ability to work across the aisle without giving up too much. 

We have 11 men currently under consideration.  Most of the lower tier candidates are lower tier because they lack the articulateness to allow their vision to catch on.  Either that, or their vision is narrow, not wide enough to encompass all a President in the modern era must be engaged in.  Based on finances, clarity, and vision, only Romney, McCain, Thompson, Guiliani, and Gingrich are viable.  Huckabee has the clarity and Hunter has the vision, but both are mired in the second tier, and it would take a major push to bring either forward.  To paraphrase Doc Steech, they lack Gravitas.  I always thought this meant seriousness.  I still am not sure what it means other than catching the imagination and eye of enough people.  The rest of the second tier have serious flaws that to me eliminate them.  So in looking at the top 5, in terms of conservatism, articulateness, and negotiation:

Guiliani is conservative on few issues, very articulate, and appears skilled at negotiation.  He was very effective in cleaning up New York.  He was very effective in dealing with entrenched city bureocracies and getting things done.  He was and remains very clear on the war.  Yet he is not a committed tax cutter, is a social liberal, and while he claims at a national level to support the second amendment, at a local level he did not.  He is also very hazy on immigration issues.  I do not agree with those who say he mirrors Clinton.  On security issues, he is a clear superior to her, and on law and order issues, he has a track record of toughness.  But we could not count on him on too many issues for me to endorse him.  If he is the nominee, I am undecided how I would respond.

Romney is a "born again conservative".  Claiming to be like Reagan, a conservative from a liberal state, he strikes me as far too much a chameleon for my tastes.  He does not flip flop like Hillary, but seems to be an evolving conservative, a person who is attempting to become the man conservatives want.  I am a committed Christian, and was brought up to view Mormonism as a cult, yet I could (and have) voted for a Mormon, this is a non issue for me.  My biggest issue with Romney is his health care boondoggle, and his schmooze factor.  I just can't get over the idea that he is fake.  Call me immature, but thats where I am.  He ran a liberal state, so is a good negotiator, seems articulate, but also seems fake.  If he is nominated, I will probably vote for him, but with limited enthusiasm.

McCain likes to be considered a maverick, and loves to cross political lines.  Every so often, I listen to him on the war issues, and think wow...this guy is good.  Then he sponsors amnesty, or we see the results of his McCain Feingold sham, and I realize he is too unpredictable.  This is not TR like he wants us to believe, this is US Grant, a legitimate war hero who flailed aimlessly as a politician.  I do not think he will be the nominee, but if he is, I am in a quandry because i do not think I can support him.

Thompson is like Romney.  I have liked most of his essays on Townhall and elsewhere, but he was pretty nondescript as a Senator, and I cannot shake the feeling that he is schmoozing us.  I really can't convince myself he believes the things he writes.  I would probably support him, but would like to see him give us more substance.

Gingrich is an egomaniac.  he is a divisive, polarizing figure, whose personal life has to be considered a liability.  And yet he has the vision that all other candidates lack.  He is Winston Churchill.  His articulateness is exceptional, he can work across party lines, and is a clear conservative (though his recent green kick is confusing to me)  If Americans see the threat we face both internally and externally from liberalism and islamic fascism, they will choose Newt.  If Americans feel safe and secure with plodding on as before, they will choose someone else because of his abrasive demeanor and percieved baggage.  If Newt is the nominee, I will whole heartedly support him despite the baggage.  As my last post indicated, I think a sense of History is a key to greatness, and Newt could be a great President.  

This is early, and incomplete, but it outlines where I stand.  For the record, I am an absolutist.  I want real conservatives, not RINOs.  I do not believe we have to compromise principles to win.  Arnold did not win in California because he was a centrist, but because he was a "Rock Star" and the shallow electorate liked that.  The Republican party did not collapse in California because of its conservatism, but because of its horrible communication skills.  It tried to be all things to all people and this never works.  If I return to Oregon before the 08 election, I will vote third party before I will support Gordon Smith, the RINO up for reelection.  For president, let the process play out.