Thanks to the Senate rule requiring a 60-vote super-majority to get any bill to a vote, this country has become virtually ungovernable. Is it time to do away with, or at least modify the fillibuster rules that has brought the federal government to a political standstill?

Political satirist Jon Stewart joked on a recent “Daily Show” broadcast about how Scott Brown, the 41st member of the minority party in the U.S. Senate, had become the most powerful person in Washington when he was elected to take the seat long held by the liberal icon and health care reform champion, Ted Kennedy.

It's actually no joke. Without that tenuous 60-vote super-majority, the Democrats are powerless to get any legislation passed–at least as long as the Republicans' only policy is to “Just Say No” and refuse to go along with any Democratic initiative.

I know democracy does not necessarily mean majority rule–the fact that the U.S. Constitution gave equal votes to small states and large in the Senate is testimony to that.

I also realize that the Founding Fathers were intent on creating separation of powers as well as checks and balances, and that the Senate was created in part to counteract the more fleeting, populist views of the House of Representatives.

While the 60-vote super-majority required to end Senate debate and vote on a bill is not in the Constitution, but is instead an internal Senate rule–one that is not easily modified–I understand that to urge a change might be reckless and short-sighted.

For one, the majority party frustrated with the rule today could very well be the minority party depending on that same super-majority roadblock tomorrow to keep the new power brokers from railroading their agenda through the Senate.

For another, since the Founders obviously expected the Senate to be a more deliberative body–a legislative speed bump, if you will–even though they did not put this super-majority rule into the Constitution, theoretically they might not have been averse to the idea, given that a super-majority requires broader consensus.

(Remember, when the Constitution was written, there were no political parties, and George Washington warned against the establishment of such divisive political forces–to no avail. The super-majority rule, for better or worse, forces the majority to at least hear out the minority's views.)

Still, given the evolution of our politics into an “Us Versus Them” mentality, I can't help but wonder if the rules should be altered, even if that takes the so-called “nuclear option”–in which a simple majority votes to change the Senate's rules.

For the moment, President Barack Obama is taking the huge upset in Massachusetts in stride. There is no call from the White House to blow up the Senate's longstanding rules, even if it did derail the President's health care reform initiative, and threatens his quest to reform financial services oversight.

Instead, he's taken Republicans at their word, challenging them to take the hot seat with him by actually governing, rather than just grandstanding and stalling for time until the next election. He started by urging a new era of cooperation in his State of the Union address, then walked into the lion's den by taking questions and responding candidly at a House Republican retreat.

Now he wants Republicans to join him later this month to hash out where to go from here on health care reform. Instead of just waving the white flag and surrendering to those who prefer to keep the status quo, he expects Republicans to work together with he and his Democratic allies on Capitol Hill to craft a bipartisan bill.

He even wants to televise the meeting (as his Q&A with Republicans were broadcast last month) to show the country how he's trying to get his opponents to work with him on a compromise bill that both parties can live with.

The Republicans complained that President Obama and Democrats in Congress wanted nothing to do with their ideas on health care reform. He contests that claim, and is calling their bluff by opening up the process and inviting them to sit at the table and hash this all out.

Is this a political stunt? I don't think so. Certainly, he'd seize on Republican intransigence to make a case against their candidates in the November elections and beyond? So what? Why shouldn't he?

However, if he can actually get a compromise bill passed, it will help tens of millions struggling to survive the current shell game called health insurance.

This country is sick of political gridlock. Politics is the art of compromise. It's time  we actually got some action out of Washington to cover the millions without health insurance, protect the coverage of those lucky enough to have it now, and lower costs for all.

What do you folks think will come of all this?