Where to begin?
Most people who oppose PBA (partial-birth abortion, not the ban) are pro-choice. The fact that a person is opposed to a particularly horrific abortion technique, doesn't mean that he believes that abortion should be illegal.
As for candidate who are hostile to Roe v. Wade, I certainly haven't seen them. Why do you think that President Bush and others have been so ambiguous on the subject of abortion, declaring fealty to the "culture of life", while not openly endorsing making abortions illegal. Exactly because such hostility is an electoral loser. You might ask Senators Rick Santorum and Alan Keyes if you don't believe me.
As for gay marriage bans, most people oppose gay marriage but favor civil unions. And they certainly oppose discrimination against gay people. That's the middle ground, and that is the position that both President Bush and Rudy Giuliani have.
I certainly wouldn't argue that 2006 was solely lost on philosophy. However, the party's close relations with the Religious Right is harming the party in the long run. In 1980, it was an absolute winner, because moderate Republicans were reassured by Reagan's individualism. By drawing in new socially conservative and security-minded Democrats, he won two landslide victories. However, gradually, pro-choice Republicans and others who aren't particularly relgious, are being alienated by the party. Look at the Terri Schiavo mess. It single-handedly began the GOP's slide in the polls.
Boy oh boy. WHY do you think Romney and McCain both are trying to pass themselves off as anti Roe crusaders? Why do you think Rudy has been twisting himself into a pretzel saying now he supports the Hyde amendment, changing his stance on PBA and ASSURING us (as you are doing) that Scalia and Alito are the cat's meow of judges? Why do you think such stalwart pro lifers like Santorum and Allen where beaten by...you guessed it, pro lifers. Why do you think a staunch anti-Roe gal like the gorgeous Michelle Bachman could handily win in Minnesota against a media darling candidate. Sure there are counter examples, but they do not make your compelling case. And for the record, Bush is THE most pro life candidate we've had in a long time. He uses the words "sanctity of life" and the "value of life" instead of the term "abortion". But everyone on both sides have been very clear since 1999 where he stands.
I noticed you didn't address the 2nd amendment part of my argument. How many senators and congressman ran on anti-gun platforms in 06? 04? 02? It has become a dem albatross, so they quit doing it, even going so far as to tell the congresscritters from safe big city seats to not chirp about it, so as not to affect the party nationwide.
And Bush is not pro civil union. He is anti gay marriage, and wants to amend the constitution to enshrine that. And he says he is OPPOSED to civil unions, but its not the feds job to interfere with other arrangents short of marriage that the states pass.
You've got a bad argument here. To beat Santorum the Dems had to run a candidate who was nominally pro-life. If they would have run a typical pro-abortion Dem, they would have lost.
I believe Keyes thrust himself into an unsalvageable race when he tried to replace a scandalized candidate at the last minute. He also carried a "Carpetbagger" image because he had to move from Maryland to Illinois in order to run. Abortion was not a large factor in this one either.