The Next Hurrah - Blogging one's life away?

How much do I need to know? How much time do I need to spend to keep up?

Here's what the Anchorage Daily News had to say in its "In Brief" section today:

Longtime Bush Aide to Leave White House

WASHINGTON — Dan Bartlett, President Bush's longest-serving aide and one of his closest confidantes, said Friday that he would leave the administration in the summer. Bartlett's is the latest and most significant departure in what has been a shrinking of Bush's inner circle. Bartlett, who turned 36 on Friday, has spent more than a third of his life working for Bush, starting as a junior policy aide when Bush ran for governor of Texas. Bartlett said he was leaving to spend more time with his family and pursue new career options. -Daily News Wire Reports

A quick Google search found an expanded copy of this on the Houston Chronicle website, which included:

By JIM RUTENBERG
New York Times

plus half a sentence more the ADN left out of the selection above, and then it went on further, though I suspect less than the original NY Times article. OK, Bartlett's a Texas boy, so Houston should spend more time than Anchorage.


But I've been reading The Next Hurrah a political blog that, while I've been reading it, has focused on the inner workings of the Department of Justice. I think I must have first found it when they were talking about the Alaska Legislative indictments - from a DOJ perspective, of course. It's refreshing to read well written, thoughtful discussions of the inner workings of government, by people who have much more access to the players than I have. They've been discussing the Libby trial and sentencing, the firing of the United States Attorneys, the Gonzales hearings, and other DOJ business. Yesterday I read Buh Bye Bartlett at The Next Hurrah. The post wasn't that long, but there were 68 comments dissecting every possible (liberal) interpretation of his leaving.

So how much do I really need to know? The ADN brief paragraph? Or The Next Hurrah's version? As I ponder this, first it seems that someone has to watch closely every branch of government and various corporations as well. Second, when something important happens they need to send the alert beyond the confines of their blog. Of course, if the general public gets word something is happening they can google the term and find these specialized blogs, and good reporters are also monitoring them for tips. Third, citizens need occasionally to dip into these much deeper than normal discussions of an issue just to get a sense of how an administration or a party looks under a microscope, rather than the superficial documenting of events from the mass media and the spin industry.

Keeping up with The Next Hurrah takes way too much time for me to read the posts and all the comments on a regular basis, but it's nice to know it's there and I can peek when I want. But now I'm wondering about the blog communication across ideological lines. Clearly Hurrah's bloggers believe they are keeping the Bush administration's feet to the fire, making sure wrong doing is exposed and corrected. While there are disagreements, I haven't seen anyone challenge the basic assumptions that the DOJ is in crisis because of Gonzales and the Bush administration. But surely conservatives felt the same when they were going after Clinton. Some have argued that Rove really doesn't care about decency, the law, or other common values; he only cares about winning. But no doubt there are liberals who fit that category too. A number of the posters at Hurrah can't resist the catty remark now and then, and a number would take glee if Bush were impeached. Even if he deserves impeachment, it would be a sad day for the US. And I know as I write these words, that most of us can't help but feel good seeing a criminal brought to justice. But how do we prevent those emotions from taking us beyond reasonable?

How can people with differing ideological stances get past the bluster and posturing and the need to be right, the need to win, and look at the facts that are available and the various reasonable interpretations of those facts? I remember during Watergate the Republicans on the committees, while making sure Nixon got a fair hearing, recognized their duty to the citizens of the US was a higher duty than protecting their party from scandal. They knew the party would take a big hit, but the violations were clear and most did what was right.

For various reasons, discussed by many - such as redistricting which favors the extremes rather than the middle - we are in a different era. There are more nasty, greedy zero-sum players. Perhaps bloggers can play a positive role in forcing the mainstream media and legislators to do a better job of reporting on government and of governing.