I'm guessing that you've noticed, probably read or heard about, the gap between sides in Washington. It has been in existence since the invention of this government, when the Republicans and Federalists used newspapers to bash each other and good friends Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were on opposite sides.

In 2010 we may be looking at a gap of historical, Grand Canyon-like proportions. And it may have little to nothing to do with real partisan divide.

Just yesterday, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh said while announcing that he will not run for a third term (despite a lead in the polls and something like $13 million in the bank - AKA the race won already) that the Senate has become too partisan, making progress impossible. Where he's been the last six years is another thing, but that doesn't make his point false. As a matter of fact, it might be the truest thing he could have said.

(Side note: heard an interesting, sort of joke, idea today that went like this: Hilary Clinton only wants to do one term of Sec. of State, so she resigns. Then Biden resigns to take Sec. of State job - sounds crazy, but he isn't going to be president, meaning he's holding this incredibly ceremonial job with no end reward - then, you guessed it, Mr. Moderate, Bayh runs as VP candidate in 2012. Crazier things...)

Back to the Senate. Just a few weeks ago, Speaker Nancy Pelosi pointed out that the House has sent more than 200 bills to the Senate for consideration. The vast majority of them have been untouched. She went on:

“A constitutional majority is 51 votes,” Pelosi said in an interview Tuesday with Roll Call. “If in fact the Republicans are going to say nothing can be done except by 60 percent, then maybe we all should be elected with 60 percent. It isn’t legitimate in terms of passing legislation.”

Her point is so right on that you wonder why she works in the U.S. Congress. Okay seriously, when did the filibuster become the be-all, end-all? And, at what point did Democrats decide they would look so bad if Republicans had to sustain a floor filibuster that they wouldn't even introduce legislation. I'm sure I'm not missing a step here, but when a bill goes to a floor it has to pass a cloture motion in order to end debate (or limit it actually - if cloture fails debate can go on forever). Well, why not let Republicans filibuster? Tell me who looks worse: the party introducing legislation trying to make this country better, or some old, rich white guy reading the damn phone book for four hours, blatantly saying, "I am holding up the U.S. government."

Don't for one second tell me that Democrats could not sit around and let the Republicans filibuster, for weeks if they have to (although, there aren't too many young Senators, period, and I'm not sure even Scott Brown can stand up that long), because legislation is that important. Does anyone honestly think Democrats are better off in November having not passed health care?

Yet, we continue to sit in a deep partisan divide. Ah, but I've yet to talk about why and my answer is not found in Senate office buildings. No, in reality, it's down the street - at CNN.

Actually, CNN is a bad example, more realistically, its names are Keith Olbermann, Glenn Beck, Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity (throw in Bill O'Reilly for good measure).

Look back 25 years ago. Did you have deeply partisan news? Was there a place for a hardcore Republican to go and hear everything they want to hear, further driving them away from the center. And was there some thing called Twitter, where they could instantly tell their congressman how they feel? No. Not even close. Back then it was okay to sit down with someone who disagreed with you and talk your way to a solution. Now, the mere presence of a Democrat and Republican in the same room is enough for a full night's news.

I want to make a major point here too: I think MSNBC is worse than Fox News. My roommate watches "Morning Joe" on MSNBC. This morning there was a woman on the show talking about Bayh. When she said something the host didn't agree with, he started screaming at her like she was stupid. Excuse me, you invited her onto your show, why, because she's an expert in your eyes. But no, she is saying something you don't agree with, so she's an idiot. That's not how it works.

It reminded of the days when O'Reilly used to tell everyone on his show to "shut up."

How in the world can we expect our politicians to get along, when the people that portray their message to the world are more deeply divided than they are? I honestly think that many politicians on opposite sides of the aisle are friends that just happen to disagree. I really think MSNBC and Fox News anchors dislike each other. To which I say: grow up. You are the root of this problem. You drive people apart. That same influence we always say that television has on kids, well, news channels have that on people.

We live in a world where you can avoid hearing things you don't want to hear and that you might disagree with. That isn't how you make progress. This country was built on debate. It doesn't progress without healthy debate. But, like the president said in his visit with the House Republicans, both sides have made it so politically damaging to even stand in the same room with each other that that debate is nearly impossible. Cable news has exacerbated that so badly that its effect can't even be quantified except by the days we've been working on health care legislation.

The other problem found in these hard left liberal Democrats is one thing Republicans passively poke fun at often: self-righteousness. They give the impression that they think their issue is the most important one that has ever existed and how dare you not think otherwise. Now, again I would argue Congress doesn't get so wrapped up in that attitude as much. But Senators aren't opinion leaders anymore. Gretchen Carlson does that for them. Have you ever watched MSNBC? The impression from the shows are, "this is so obvious, why would you ever oppose it?

Well, maybe climate science isn't so obvious to a coal miner in West Virginia who is going to lose his job and didn't go to college. Maybe he doesn't give a damn about global warming. How are you going to help him? Oh, you're not really? So, why blame him for opposing your bill? Doing something for the good of America does not mean you are doing it for every person in America.

Maybe health care legislation really isn't in the best interest of a state that already has comprehensive insurance that covers the whole state (Massachusetts). So why would Scott Brown vote for it? His office door doesn't say Kennedy anymore.

I realize that this is the second post in a row where you are probably questioning my party identification. Stop. Health care and energy legislation have got to be passed. The stimulus, which celebrates its one year anniversary tomorrow, was absolutely necessary. Wall Street needs to be regulated, badly. But let's stop pretending we're going to please everyone. Democrats have 57 votes (not counting independents) in the U.S. Senate. Someone needs to teach them division so they can be reminded of what percentage of 100 that is.

Which leads me to the president. Yes, I admire his attempts at bipartisanship. The parties should be working together. But, excuse me if I'm not the 589374534 person to say that, if Republicans are just going to say no, it is the responsibility of the majority party to govern. You'll lose some votes. Athletes lose games too. But they always show up.

David Brooks, the well-respected New York Times columnists wrote on Friday:

"If, a year ago, you had been asked to describe the administration’s goals in one sentence it would have been this: Barack Obama will usher in the third great wave of Democratic reform. Franklin Roosevelt had the New Deal. Lyndon Johnson had the Great Society. Obama would take the third step, transforming health care, energy, education, financial regulation and many other sectors of American life.

"The stimulus package, the cap-and-trade legislation and the health care bill were all blends of expert planning and political power-broking. This project would have permanently changed government’s role in national life.

"It was not to be."

But it was the next line that really caught my eye:

"Voters are in no mood for a wave of domestic transformation. The economy is already introducing enough insecurity into their lives. Unlike 1932 and 1965, Americans do not trust Washington to take them on a leap of faith, especially if it means more spending."

Here is my question for you Mr. Brooks, and the president as well, as he keeps saying he would rather be a great one-term president than a mediocre two-term one (something people actually believe):

Are voters ever in the mood for domestic transformation?

Please, comment at will if I am taking liberties here, but can someone name a time when people, not person, people, have reacted positively to drastic social or political change? People don't like real change, it puts pressure on them to do the things they say.

To his credit, the president has preached this. He puts the onus on the American people often, to change their own lives and be better citizens of this country. Yet, as a leader he has yet to make those changes himself.

Now, it is true that we live in a world that expects instant gratification and it might be too early to really judge the man. That said, that is the world we live in. In this government, leaders are expected to lead, now, not tomorrow.

This president has said repeatedly that he is willing to do what is hard. Change is hard, maybe moreso than anything else. Brooks mentioned LBJ and the Great Society. Skipping past the welfare programs, do you think this country was ready to be racially integrated? If you do, please go watch Remember the Titans and Glory Road, followed by the entire Eyes on the Prize series. If you like those, read the Autobiography of Malcolm X.

People are never ready for change. That is why representative governments with somewhat balanced power works. It allows a small group to make necessary changes that maybe are not popular yet, for no reason other than it would require change.

We've never seen a bigger gap between our elected leaders. All that means is that we've never seen a better opportunity for leadership. We're going to lose some of these fights. November might even rough on Democrats. But, like the president told the Democrats, if we can't do the things we said we were going to do to help this country, what is it that tells a voter, "I better put those Democrats in office." Right now, nothing.

This country is begging for leadership. Back in the day, politicians fought for power because they wanted to impose some will. Now, what are they fighting for? Their lives? A fun caucus party?

Every important change in this country took leadership, all the way to the creation of a document based on this crazy idea that people could elect their leaders. The public wasn't ready for any of them. It is the job of leaders to think past that. To take this country to where it can be, not where it has been. This whole town has completely lost sight of that.

Fixing it is going to be hard. The solutions won't be obvious. The things that need to be fixed are not the problem, however. It's the leadership.



Note: When I do link things, I try to link a cross-section of news outlets and I certainly entertain opposing ideas on my blog. That is part of the reason I am always asking for input. But, if I can do better, please say so.

Please don't take this literally: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is a natural manure." In my mind, sometimes wholesale changes have to be made.