A Conservative by definition, supports the basic immovable principles of all three pillars of Conservatism. If those basic tenets are met, there is where compromises can begin.
One is welcomed within Conservatism by one's support of any part - a social conservative is a conservative, for his support of social conservatism, but is not electable merely on that basis, else Huckabee would be president even now. The very same goes for the other legs of the stool. But these lesser (no offense meant) conservatives cannot bear the standard.
I would recognize Palin as such - But she is no Reagan Conservative. A populist, no doubt... But a moderate, along the same lines as Thompson - Civil libertarian leanings, with social conservatism thrown into the mix... But nothing approaching true Conservatism by her record.
Palin cannot harness the three pillars of Conservatism together, because she cannot stand upon the basic, unmovable principles thereof. Make no mistake - those principles will remain unmoved. Ergo, Palin can only serve as a wedge between the pillars, as each will offer up and support a candidate which is true to their own beliefs.
Anyone who compromises any of the core beliefs of the three pillars of Conservatism, or causes them to be compromised, is antithetical to what Reagan built, and is therefore antithetical to Conservatism itself. For that reason, Palin will not have my support, any more than any RINO would.
As a Reagan Conservative, that is the standard I go by, and the one, by the way, which causes Conservatism to rise up. It is principle, not pragmatism, which wins the day for us, and it always will be so.