If Republicanism is your working model of Conservatism, you are left sadly wanting. "Republican" does not mean "Conservative", nor has it, for a very long while.
The Republicans mentioned (Palin, Jindal and Steele) are *not*, by definition, more conservative than Reagan was. They are *not*, by definition, Conservative at all.
Reagan was able to not only harness, but (re)define Conservatism itself. No small feat. No one has done it better, before, or since, and I can guarantee that Palin, Jindal, or Steele are no where near his caliber. Not by a long shot.
*None* of them will be able to engage all three pillars of Conservatism natively. Each will ask at least one of the three to compromise, and try to make a deal- and in that, each would fail to win the presidency, or would win on narrow margins like we have become accustomed to.
Really... name something they've done that is not conservative. Palin freed up markets, protected RKBA, respected property Rights, and cut government fraud and abuse. Sometimes against her own Party's wishes.
The very definition of conservatism. As has been pointed out, even Reagan signed a bill that contained a provision making the NFA worse.
Jindal and Steele are proving to be of the same mold as Palin. McClintock, Hunter, Tancredo, and a few others also fit this description.
If they aren't conservative, you must be using a different definition than the rest of us.
What we are trying to conserve is the Constitution, our Republic, and our Freedoms. Even Reagan's escalation of an already failing Drug War shows that he was willing to expand government power beyond it's strict limits. By definition, anyone trying to fit the Government genie back into it's Constitutional bottle, at any or all levels of government, is a "conservative".
Contrast Reagan's deficit spending with Palin's balancing of the Alaskan budget to a point where it is the only State in the Union currently in the black on it's balance sheet.
So yeah... not just "more" conservative... a LOT more conservative.