Sure, (No offense, GG) GipperGirl's magnificent posts lay out my argument quite well. Palin is a moderate, a populist, and a pragmatist. That is not a Conservative. Having just lost a race due to watery pragmatism, I would think we would not be so quick to jump right back into the very same thinking.
And how about defining for us your 3 Pillars of the Reagan coalition.
Certainly, though they are not "mine", by any means, and have been defined for 30 years now:
The Three Pillars of the Reagan Coalition:
SOCON -Social conservatives
FICON -Fiscal conservatives, Libertarians
DEFCON -Defense conservatives, Foreign Policy conservatives
These are the oft mentioned "three legs" of the Conservative stool. These three together make the big "C" Conservative base. One who supports all three of these is a Reagan Conservative, and is naturally appealing to them all. Without all three turning out in force, Republicans lose. It is a matter of simple math.
By the way, that I must explain Reagan Conservatism on this, the premiere Conservative site on the web, bodes ill.
As for the fiscal conservatism thing...look, here's a smattering of headlines:
July 1st, 2007 - Massive line item vetoes (lopping almost a quarter-billion dollars off of a $1.8 billion capital budget).
Dec. 11th, 2007 - Palin’s proposed budget slashes earmark requests, and dramatically slows growth of government.
March 23rd, 2008 – More vetoes in the “supplemental budget”. Palin also demands that legislators explain their pork projects to her personally before she signs off on any of them. This issue was particularly hilarious because the budget was for “emergency spending” and it included (among other things) the construction of batting cages and gun ranges.
May 24th, 2008 – Second consecutive year of huge line-item vetoes in the state’s capital budget (over a quarter-billion dollars this time, 10% of the total capital budget).
“Republican primary voters in Alaska are ready for a change and are rallying to the fiscally responsible leadership embodied by Governor Palin.” - Pat Toomey, 9/24/2007
“Palin’s veto ax lops $268 million from budget” - Achorage Daily News Headline, 5/24/2008
“(Palin) has come out and told her own congressional delegation, all Republicans, ‘Stop with the earmarks! It’s wrong, it’s wrong! Even when it benefits us in Alaska.’” - Michael Medved, 12/21/2007
“Palin’s tough spending cuts drew criticism from Republican legislators whose pet projects were vetoed.” - Fred Barnes, 7/16/2007
“This week, it was Palin who single handedly killed the leading symbol of Republican spending excess in Washington: the Bridge to Nowhere.” - Patrick Ruffini, 9/29/2007
Palin’s record speaks for itself. She is a proven fiscal conservative. Take a look at this if you don’t believe me.
And if you still have a problem with her record than you really ought to listen to her explain it in detail in this interview where she was grilled about the specifics of her record and made to defend her fiscal conservative creds.
As for her not being a defense conservative, gimme a friggin' break! You're joking, right?
I don't have much time for a lengthy discussion right now ( it is 11pm in the east ) But I think the evidence presented by GipperGal and others during the campaign would dispute your contention that she is not a Reagan Conservative.
Taking your 3 pillars for a start, I think the evidence is overwhelming that she is
1. A social conservative based on her pro-life record, beliefs and actual life choices.And will clearly have the religious Right on her side.
2)She has also demonstrated fiscal restraint in both her actions as mayor and Governor and by her positions in the last campaign ( leaving aside her dutiful support of the bailout..which I blame entirely on her loyalty to McCain). And should be able to garner the fiscal conservatives and small government libertarians as well
and 3. She is a military hawk when it comes to challenges faced by this country overseas.The defense and fro a strong America types will find her mucho compatible
I don't think you can make the case for her being a moderate unless her position on the gay rights issue in state is by your definition moderate. Also IMO she is a populist in the same sense that RR was a populist in attracting the Reagan Democrats. And as far as governing as a pragmatist: well, RR was the epitome of pragmatism if by that word you mean governing to build coalitions to get things done. She is a governing pragmatist in the Reagan tradition of always moving the ball in the direction of the ultimate goal of conservative principles by getting everything she can........as opposed to the GWB form of pragmatism that takes as it's first principle the abandonment of conservative principles just to get something done. RR never did that and I believe neither has SR in Alaska.
Finally, I think it was informative to know what you where referring to when you used the word "coalition". That means political voting blocks rather than Philosophy. So I tried to address that aspect of your argument.