You know who didn’t like that idea? Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), the Afghanistan war skeptic who’s called for a “flexible timetable” for withdrawing U.S. troops. Feingold writes to The Washington Post in response to its stay-the-course editorial, but in the course of doing so, he takes issue with one of Will’s proposals:

We need a smart strategy focused on pursuing al-Qaeda without energizing anti-American sentiment in the region. That requires a more focused mission to fight al-Qaeda and the Taliban — more than simply an offshore presence and definitely not an adoption of the strategy of the 1990s, which lacked the focus and resolve that this mission must have.

Keeping large numbers of U.S. troops in Afghanistan won’t help us go after the many militants taking sanctuary in Pakistan. Nor can we expect our military to build a legitimate Afghan government. While we should help address governance problems through long-term civilian efforts, only the Afghan people can make a legitimate government a reality.

It’ll be interesting to see how Feingold fleshes out this alternative in the coming weeks. What’s a “more focused” mission to take on al-Qaeda and the Taliban that reduces a reliance on both ground troops and “offshore”-based assaults, which in the context of landlocked Afghanistan means air or cruise-missile strikes?

The national telephone survey, which was conducted from June 12 to 16, found that 72 percent of those questioned supported a government-administered insurance plan — something like Medicare for those under 65 — that would compete for customers with private insurers. Twenty percent said they were opposed.

Republicans have almost universally been attacking the Democrats’ public plan proposal, arguing that it would have unfair advantages over private insurance plans, encroaching upon (and eventually eliminating) the private marketplace. Those sentiments were encapsulated Sunday by syndicated conservative columnist George Will, who warned of the Democrats’ “stealth single-payer agenda.”

Assurances that the government plan would play by the rules that private insurers play by are implausible. Government is incapable of behaving like market-disciplined private insurers. Competition from the public option must be unfair because government does not need to make a profit and has enormous pricing and negotiating powers. Besides, unless the point of a government plan is to be cheaper, it is pointless: If the public option conforms to the imperatives that regulations and competition impose on private insurers, there is no reason for it.

That the American people seem more concerned with their own health than with the health of the insurance industry doesn’t appear to have crosssed Will’s mind. In the wake of the new poll numbers, we’ll see if he and other conservatives still feel the need to protect 72 percent of Americans from their own thinking.

George Will, Washington Post. An expert on games from baseball to politics, Will is one of the best-read people in a smart city.

George Will’s column today:

The incessant hectoring by the media-political complex’s “consciousness-raising” campaign has provoked a comic riposte in the form of “The Goode Family,” an animated ABC entertainment program at 9 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesdays. Cartoons seem, alas, to be the most effective means of seizing a mass audience’s attention.

By the transitive property, Mike Judge’s cartoon is better at explaining the news than any journalist in Washington.

George Will, dressed to impress (Flickr: Scott Ableman)

There has been a lot of speculation lately about how The Washington Post, as one of the world’s preeminent news organizations, could actually allow columnist George Will’s recent factually challenged and much-maligned climate change denialist rant to be published. Many suspect it is due to the cheerleading of The Post’s powerful editorial page editor, Fred Hiatt.

Today, the dangerous insufficiency of The Washington Post’s op/ed page editing process became even more painfully obvious. Will, through his decades of writing, has become a one-man institution at The Post. With Hiatt’s perma-green light, no matter how crazy, poorly reasoned, just plain dumb, or embarrassing Will’s columns might be, there doesn’t seem to be anyone there who will say no — effectively giving Will carte blanche to publish whatever drivel his brain produces.

How else can one possibly explain the fact that Will’s latest column — a 750-word screed against that bane of all things American, blue jeans (!) — actually made it into print?

Denim is the infantile uniform of a nation in which entertainment frequently features childlike adults (”Seinfeld,” “Two and a Half Men”) and cartoons for adults (”King of the Hill”). Seventy-five percent of American “gamers” — people who play video games — are older than 18 and nevertheless are allowed to vote. In their undifferentiated dress, children and their childish parents become undifferentiated audiences for juvenilized movies (the six — so far — “Batman” adventures and “Indiana Jones and the Credit-Default Swaps,” coming soon to a cineplex near you). Denim is the clerical vestment for the priesthood of all believers in democracy’s catechism of leveling — thou shalt not dress better than society’s most slovenly. To do so would be to commit the sin of lookism — of believing that appearance matters. That heresy leads to denying the universal appropriateness of everything, and then to the elitist assertion that there is good and bad taste.

Oh, I’m sorry. Was that not quite pretentiously asinine enough for your taste? Well, then, try this on for size:

This is not complicated. For men, sartorial good taste can be reduced to one rule: If Fred Astaire would not have worn it, don’t wear it. For women, substitute Grace Kelly.

Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers (Source: RKO Pictures)

Yes, that’s right. To wear anything less than coattails or a ball gown (with heels!) at all times is to prove yourself an indigent slob whose fashion sense offends Will’s delicate sensibilities.

See, here’s the thing. Blue jeans are comfortable. And affordable. And they look reasonably OK on pretty much anyone, and they go well with almost any shirt. That’s why people wear them. Also, they rank right up there with apple pie, Chevrolet and rock n’ roll as quintessential American icons. Is Will saying he’s too good for America?

For years, I really did enjoy reading Will, whom I, like many on the left, often found to be a smart, reasonable, entertaining, and increasingly rare voice of old-school classical conservatism. I’m not sure what happened to that guy, but maybe it’s about time for Will to start thinking about packing it in. He’s had a good run, and it’s probably better to go out with a shred of dignity than as a has-been laughingstock.

And if I, in the autumn of my career, ever start publishing pointless and nonsensical ravings such as Will’s anti-blue jeans diatribe, I do hope someone will Google this post and send it to me, and I will take that as my signal that it’s about time to hang it up.

Because Arctic sea ice floats partially submerged in the ocean, its decline does not immediately lead to rising sea levels. However, scientists say that the shrinking ice can lead to warmer ocean temperatures, which in turn can melt ice in Greenland and elsewhere that will contribute to higher waters. Some scientists now think that Arctic ice could vanish altogether by 2015.

Just as the North Korean missile launch on Sunday lent urgency to President Obama’s Prague speech on nuclear disarmament, this revelation adds weight to a meeting of international leaders in Washington to address polar warming issues. According to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, the United States may ask the states of the Arctic Council — which includes the United States, Canada, Russia, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland and Iceland — to take steps to reduce short-lived pollutants that contribute to polar warming, including methane and soot (black carbon).

As The Post’s Juliet Eilperin and Mary Beth Sheridan point out, yesterday’s measurements are the latest evidence against columnist George Will’s Feb. 15 assertion in the newspaper that sea ice is actually growing:

As global levels of sea ice declined last year, many experts said this was evidence of man-made global warming. Since September, however, the increase in sea ice has been the fastest change, either up or down, since 1979, when satellite record-keeping began. According to the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.

Looks like Will might have to get The Post’s ombudsman to defend him again.

Update: Reuters has a good video simulation of the shrinking Arctic ice (starting about a minute in), along with similarly bleak news coming out of Antarctica, where a major ice shelf is on the brink of breaking off.

The objective in launching these sorts of parleys with your opponents is two-fold. First, to see if they can be placated, and whether the price of doing so is acceptable. And second, to visibly demonstrate to the broader population that you’ve taken every reasonable step at reaching out to these adversaries — so if they rebuke you and you counterattack, you look like the reasonable party and they look like the rejectionists. It’s generally a sound strategy, and it’s achieved real results.

Am I talking about Iraq? Sure. Afghanistan? I hope so. But the lesson also applies to Barack Obama’s dinner with Bill Kristol, David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, and George Will.

Speculation swirled all over the EIB: Obama asked for ideas to save the economy, Rush had some good ones on Monday, and Tuesday he’s mysteriously in Washington… coincidence?

Sadly, Sam Stein reports that “Limbaugh was definitely not in attendance during the dinner affair.” That begs the question Patrick Ruffini asked: “How representative are Will, Kristol, and Brooks of conservative media?” If you add in Krauthammer, two of them are Fox News “all-stars” who talk to the Fox audience at least once a day. If you strike Will and Brooks from the “conservative media,” then you’re defining it down to the print media organs of the right and to talk radio. And it would be amazing if the Obama White House gave them the access that he’s giving the wiser elites of the movement.

This is for real, folks. The bloggers are going to love this one.

Boy, you’ve got that right.

The PEOTUS departed Hay-Adams at 6:17 p.m. and at arrived at 6:34 p.m. at [address redacted]. Thanks to the good work of Hans Nichols (of Bloomberg and “Daily Show” fame), Montgomery County property tax records showed this is the home of conservative columnist George Will (valued at $1.9 million, according to the 2008 levy).

Wow. President-elect Barack Obama’s at George Will’s house? Whatever for?

Your pool has been told it’s a dinner party.

It gets better.

And, thanks to an enterprising photographer, a shot through a window showed op-ed stalwarts William Kristol and David Brooks are also part of this unlikely gathering of tight, right suits.

Oh, to be a fly on THAT wall.

“If there’s a Georgetown cocktail party person who, quote, calls himself a conservative, and doesn’t like her, good luck, good luck.”

Is this a thinly-veiled shot at conservative columnist George Will?

Will reportedly told an audience of Senate aides yesterday that Palin is “obviously not qualified to be president” — and previously referred to McCain as “unpresidential” after saying he would fire the Securities and Exchange Commission chairman, Christopher Cox.

Never mind that Will is one of the most respected of a dwindling number of true classical conservatives left in this country — McCain appears to be attacking the messenger, rather than addressing the concerns raised by the growing crowd of Palin’s conservative critics. Namely, that Palin’s recent interview performances indicate she has a severe lack of facility with the big issues and is generally unprepared for the big leagues.

So, was McCain attacking Will?

You be the judge.