A rejoinder to last night’s quote of the day. “Clearly,” says Rush, “in last year’s campaign, the most prominent, articulate voice for standard, run-of-the-mill, good old fashioned American conservatism was Sarah Palin.” Was she? On what subject, aside from the value of life and energy policy, was she any more compelling a spokesman than, say, Fred Thompson? This is the fundamental mystery of Palin’s appeal to me: It’s not that I don’t like her, it’s that I simply don’t see why she’s been anointed the new Reagan by so much of the base. As reviled RINO Mike Huckabee famously observed, she and he aren’t so different on the issues. In fact, aside from her convention speech, the rhetoric for which she’s most remembered during the campaign isn’t any articulation of conservative ideals but for accusing The One, correctly, of being entirely too comfortable around Bill Ayers. If Rush is right that some members of the new National Council for a New America are “embarrassed” by her, doubtless it has less to do with policy — she and Romney have the same stances on virtually everything except health care (I think), after all — than with the tabloid distractions that seem to follow her around. From what I can tell, the true key to her alleged Reaganism has little to do with policy at all and everything to do with her being an unpretentious small-town kid whose fondness for hunting and hockey gives her a populist authenticity no other politician can touch. (Which explains why items like this are so popular with readers.) Is that what it takes to be Reagan these days? No room for, say, Bobby Jindal either? Click the image to listen.

Update: So much for “hate”: Palin announced today that she’ll be working with the Council, thanks in part to outreach towards her by McCain and Cantor last week.