I know you are probably getting tons of advice from all corners about what you should do now in the aftermath of the upset election of Scott Brown, a Republican, as a senator in the bluest of states, Massachusetts.

You, and we, are hearing from the punditocracy that it was a repudiation of your overreaching agenda, of health care reform and of all those other “ultra-liberal” causes you’ve espoused since being sworn in exactly a year ago.

Democrats are indulging in paroxysms of hand wringing (the Chicken Little thing), while Republicans are ecstatic beyond belief (What me worry?).  Meanwhile, the country is waiting to see what you’re going to do.

Here, sir, is my advice: Take off the gloves.

Let us see what you really believe in instead of leaving us to fathom what it is that we think you believe in.  And when you’ve shown us what you believe in—then fight for it.

Enough with the bipartisanship already!  If it isn’t obvious by now that you’re not going to get any support from across the aisle—for pretty much anything—then something is wrong with your receptor.  We know you have the fire in the belly and know how to fight.  You overcame long odds to become president after all.

But because you haven’t really fought for anything all out since taking office, and have mainly given half-hearted support to your initiatives, the opposition has been able to get away with its unending chorus of “No!”

Case in point: Health care reform.  I’ll be damned if I know—and I cover it!—where you stand on the issue.  And that’s the problem, sir.  For someone so articulate, you have a way of fuzzying up, if not hiding altogether, what your goals are and what it is you really want to accomplish. 

You and I know that “No” is not going to solve any of the problems that face this country.  In the language of the schoolyard, you’ve got to make your opponents “put up or shut up.”  And if they can’t or don’t “put up,” then start pounding them for doing nothing.  Harry Truman did it.  Bill Clinton did it.  You can do it.

You were elected in large part to change things, if I might remind you of your mantra, sir. 

It’s true you inherited the biggest mess of any president since FDR.  But messes make the man, if you get my drift.

A couple of other things: I don’t think you’ve got a grip on the amount of rage that’s out there.  People want jobs and security for their homes and families. They want to see a sense of fair treatment prevail.  They want to know that the country’s not giving away the bank—to the banks!

If you don’t get on the right side of this rage, you’re going to be a one-term president.

So, take on the big banks, which are the focus of so much of the rage.  But don’t propose measures as a bureaucrat.  And, sir, calling a bevy of bank CEOs “fat cat bankers” one time is just not going to cut it.  As in anything else, practice makes perfect.  So, once more with feeling!

If the country is still limping along a year from now, with unemployment still sky high and people feeling you’re not doing much about it, there’ll be nobody to blame but yourself.

You can look at the Massachusetts election as a reason to run for cover or as a wake-up call.  I sincerely hope you decide to do the latter.  But remember one thing about wake-up calls, sir.  They don’t do any good unless you get out of bed.

In an age where millions of people get off on conveying their thoughts in 140 characters (not words) or less, the art of crafting a one-word description of anything seems like a next logical step.

So if, after witnessing the U.S. Senate during the month of December, you were asked to describe that legislative chamber in one word, what would it be?

(Yes, I know, but no #@$&*($%*%*# words are allowed.)

For myself, I know what words would not be among those I would use to describe the Senate.  Here are a few of them: admirable, competent, inspirational, multi-tasking.

Some of the ones that might make my list: unbecoming, ridiculous, one-dimensional.

I think you would have to agree—no matter where you stand (perch?) on the political spectrum—that it was an undignified spectacle at best.  Is this how we as a country really want our Senate and the 100 potentates that grace it with their presence to operate?    

The most outrageous thing about the Senate is, of course, that 60-vote rule that came out of who knows where and lives on as a hallowed tradition.  I’m not going to belabor the point that nowhere in the Constitution–which, by the way, these Senators have sworn to uphold–does it say anything about having to garner 60 votes in order to move anything ahead.

But the outrageousness of the 60-vote rule became so clear as one or two senators were able to effectively dictate what large sections of the health care reform package would or wouldn’t contain.

You may well have appreciated Sen. Joe Lieberman’s threats this time around because they happened to play into what you wanted or didn’t want.  But you can rest assured that the time will come when another senator with delusions of grandeur takes a Lieberman-type position on something of vital interest to you.  Then we’ll see how much cheering you do.

And where did this apparent rule come from that you cannot consider a couple of pieces of legislation simultaneously?  Even kids in kindergarten are taught that you can use both hands at the same time.

Thus, we ended up with a result that no one really expected to actually happen.  Which is to say that the Senate never acted one way or another on the fact that the estate tax was due to expire for a year at the end of 2009, only to be reborn at 2001 levels in 2011. 

The fact that this cockamamie law was passed in the first place is a pretty big indictment of our legislators.  But all the while we kept telling ourselves that surely Congress would move to fix the year’s lapse.  They couldn’t possibly let it expire without doing something about it, we kept telling ourselves.  The possibility that they would do nothing—not act at all—was the stuff of late-night comedy shows, not something that might happen in the world’s greatest deliberative body.

It’s not like they didn’t have enough time to think about it. 

So now, the likelihood is some kind of retroactive patch, which in itself will create all kinds of weird problems. What if someone dies in that period when there is no estate tax, i.e., before retroactivity is voted on and approved?

The House at least took some action on the estate tax.  Similarly it has moved ahead on financial services reform, while the Senate tries to find its navel.

Maybe the problem is that there are too many millionaires in the Senate and they’ve just forgotten that we vote for them and then pay them to be there and get things done.

So, my one word to describe the Senate?

Dysfunctional.

So rarely do I find myself agreeing with anything Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., has to say (actually, I don’t think it’s ever happened) that I feel compelled to recognize a gesture of his with which I feel in complete agreement.

Coburn likes to play the spoiler and I believe that was the impetus behind his introducing an amendment to the health care reform legislation now being debated in the Senate.  What his amendment said was that senators would have to be covered by any public option plan that ended up in the bill. 

As someone who is dead-set against any public option, Coburn surely meant this as a way of sticking it to his fellow senators (across the aisle, naturally) who are strongly in favor of a public option being included in the bill.

Senators are now covered, in the words of the New York Times, by “gold-plated coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.”  In other words, really good coverage that Coburn probably knows many of his fellow senators would be reluctant to give up.

So perhaps even he was surprised when some Democrats not only supported his amendment but volunteered to co-sponsor it.  One particularly enthusiastic backer of this amendment was, the Times noted, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio. 

Brown was quoted as saying, “I think it’s important that we show we mean it, we believe in it, that it works for the public and we’re willing to put our own families on it.  This says we have to go on the public option.  I think they are right.”

If those senators who really believe a public option is necessary were to follow Brown’s lead and commit to being covered by the government-run plan, it could be a game-changer, particularly in the public mind. 

A lot of the resentment against members of Congress is that the laws and regulations they make for us to live by don’t seem to need to apply to them, at least in their estimation.  

So rarely do politicians put their money where their mouth is that we seem to have forgotten that it is still possible.  This amendment would take a nice big whack at the elitism that people feel Congress accords itself as a matter of course.

If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is truly committed to having a public option in the final bill, then he should start a very public campaign of rounding up the 60 votes to get the amendment passed.  He might not make it, but even if the effort failed, it would be a moral victory of sorts.  And goodness knows there have been few enough of those coming out of Capitol Hill lately.