I don't know what the solution is, except that the GOP desperately needs an identity, and since the Dems have their, we would be wise to not be them. Take that identity, take those core values, and then begin fighting for them---not just cloaking them in Dem terms like Gingrich and McCain do ("we believe in Global Warming but we want to do it right").
Now, in the short term, yes, we might lose some. We're likely going to lose some anyway, so you might as well be RIGHT, then later you can, like Churchill, Reagan, and Thatcher, point to how right you were and earn the trust of the public.
There were generally individual reasons why many of them lost. Blackwell carried the baggage of an ugly primary where the establishment didn't want him AND having Taft's party label hung around his neck (and it sank EVERY other statewide, non-judicial candidate, save for one office, Auditor). DeWine was not regarded as a Conservative, and he managed to piss off a lot of people. Conrad Burns was slimed by the media regarding Abramoff, and it turned out that he was telling the truth and cleared -- but conveniently AFTER he lost a heartbreakingly close election. Hayworth's loss was a puzzlement to me. Santorum had the problem of pissing off the base with his endorsement of Specter and a name candidate that more than a few old timers thought was his dad. Allen lost because he ran a weak campaign and the macaca nonsense (nevermind his opponent was absolutely vile and had a mountain of baggage that was NEVER used against him, ranging from his violent streak, racism, anti-Semitism, his authorship of books featuring pedophelia, etc., etc.). It's just that 2006 was the perfect storm for us to be wiped out.
"I don't know what the solution is, except that the GOP desperately needs an identity, and since the Dems have their, we would be wise to not be them."
Here's the problem... right now, the Dems only identity is that they AREN'T the GOP, and that's pretty much how they're winning elections. They actually don't care if they elect semi-Conservatives, they just want to pack the seats to pad their majorities. That in itself will cause problems for them in the long run, especially if a large group of them from Republican districts can't vote for radical initiatives. But one thing is clear, we're not going to win by going leftwards. I've discovered that the Democrats can effectively cover the entire ideological spectrum and get their candidates elected (at least below the Presidential level, they'd never nominate anyone other than a far-left moonbat), but the Republicans can't. If we all of a sudden started nominating far-left liberals in urban districts, they wouldn't win. The GOP can only get away with one segment of the ideological rainbow, because its voters are far more discerning with higher standards. To support leftist Republicans would run counter to those standards. In every part of the country that decided to go that direction, the GOP simply died. Because the Dems' lust for power means they'd sell out their values for majorities, is the one reason why they can get away with their stunts of winning seats as they have in these heavily Conservative GOP areas (benefitting from the anti-GOP anger).
Even if they get one, it won't matter. The television and print media simply listen to what Pelosi and Reid say, and then present it as fact. This is why our economy is on the verge of "collapse" and the Iraq mission has been a "disaster".
I don't have an answer for dealing with a democrat media that controls most of the outlets. (If there's a 2nd American Revolution, I will though.)