When the Berlin fell (was torn down!) and the USSR tossed itself onto the ash heap of history, Francis Fukuyama suggested that it might be "the end of history."
After the 2002 elections when the Republicans gained seats in the House and Senate while there are was a Republican President, some suggested that it might be the end of the Democrat Party.
Now, with a Democrat in the White House and Democrats in majority in the House and Senate, some are saying that it's surely the end of the Republican Party.
History is on-going. The Democrats managed not to collapse into nothingness after 2002. Why should 2008 or even 2009 be any different for Republicans or conservatives? It's all rather silly. The form may (and rightly should) change. But "the end" it is not. I'm not about to predict an automatic Republican resurgence in 2010. It's quite possible for them to screw up - just take a look at how well they did with NY-23 where they swerved so far off course that when a third candidate started gaining, the supposed Republican dropped out of the race and endorsed the Democrat. Unless that third party candidate was "caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl" that is a Career Limiting Move. If they repeat that performance, they will likely get the same result.
It's just that I've been seeing many posts or comments about the end of one party that seem silly to me. I've seen the exact same thing from the other side not that long ago. And I remember. It's not the end. It's just different for a while is all. The population that got tired of Republicans can, and will, eventually get tired of Democrats and almost certainly for about the exact same reasons. The details will change, but the cause-effect relationship will be pretty stable. And time marches on.