I don’t think this is reverse psychology, or some trick. But some conservatives are now begrudgingly admitting that they find some appeal in Elizabeth Warren’s message.

In particular, this piece by far-right columnist Rod Dreher caught my attention:

But I hope that Sen. Warren will run for president in 2016 to force a national conversation on the Washington-Wall Street power nexus….

A populist who talks like Elizabeth Warren and really means it is a Democrat a conservative like me would consider voting for, despite her social liberalism. As Phyllis Schlafly said back in 1964, in defending Goldwater against the Establishment Republican Nelson Rockefeller, a contest between Warren and Clinton, and a contest between Warren and just about any Republican would give the country a choice, not an echo.

He’s not the only one.  From HotAir to RedState, online bastions of extreme conservatism were actually drawn to Elizabeth Warren’s non-conservative message (and Nancy Pelosi’s, too).

Again, I don’t see this as reverse psychology, or some trick to get Democrats to nominate Warren over Hillary Clinton.  If nothing else, the writers and blogs above are true believers in what they say, no matter how much I may normally disagree with them.  So, I think they’re being genuine, here.

Not so long ago, I wrote about how Warren’s opening argument – her raison d’etre – absolutely would have appeal in the reddest parts of the South.  It’s progressive, but it has the ability to appeal beyond ideological lines.

I think the developing feelings among the online right for Warren’s core message give more credence to that notion.