I agree with Droid more than Vimothy on this. All large political parties are coalitions of disparate groups that tend to cohere on larger points of principle, temperament or tendency; the question is always, is said party at war with itself, or has it formed a pact?
Karl Rove was the great alliance-broker for the GOP. Argually, when he was at work in (say) 1999, the GOP (talking politicians, activists and core voters) was more diverse than it is now. I see no reason why the party can't reform closer to the centre, incorporating the religious right, neocons and libertarians (if we agree that these are the three main and distinct blocs). This could easily happen and be helped by (as I said) siphoning off or driving away extreme fringes of the Tea Party (does the "movement" even exist now?), like the John Birchers.
Fox and National Review can adapt as much as form Conservative and Republican opinion; Fox existed when Colin Powell was a Republican Secertary of State. It's the party powerbrokers that decide the fate of the party, and in 2008 they decided to oppose every single policy that Obama proposed.
These days people don't just talk about the future of the GOP but the future of the conservative movement. This has been in jeopardy since the rise of Sarah Palin and the exile of David Frum (figuratively speaking). There is no reason -- philosophically, ideologically, demographically, poltitically -- why it cannot rebuild around all these people.