By this time we all know how very very difficult it is to get anything done in the U.S. Senate, so it is not surprising that Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., was upset about President Obama’s proposals regarding banks—what businesses they can or cannot be in under certain conditions and how big they should be.

One can understand the annoyance of the soon to be retired senior senator from the Nutmeg state who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.  After all, members of his committee have been paired off for months working on different facets of financial reform so that the Senate can have a bipartisan solution to hold up to the world.

Never mind that by the time Dodd’s committee finally puts something out, whatever the plan is will have taken longer to gestate than an elephant.  And the similarity, friends, is not likely to end there. 

So much time will have gone by that we will almost have forgotten what the impetus for financial reform was—and maybe that’s the point.  After all, banks are minting money again (although still not lending it), bank bonuses are in the pre-meltdown range (if not higher) and money from bank lobbyists is gushing. 

It’s obviously ‘What, me worry?’ time again in the good old U.S.A.

So what does the president do when these months-long negotiations between Banking Committee members are reaching a critical point?  He comes along and crashes the party.

I guess he didn’t realize just how delicate these negotiations are, how their fragility could be shattered by wanting too much from the legislation.

The New York Times quoted Dodd as saying that the administration was “’getting precariously close’ to excessive ambition for the legislation.” 

Dodd added: “I don’t want to be in a position where we end up doing nothing because we tried to do too much.”

While I feel your pain, senator, I’m also thinking that maybe the president has seen how unrewarding it has been to pretty much hand over major initiatives on health care reform and financial services reform to Congress.  Maybe he has seen the error of his ways and decided to start flexing a bit of executive power.

Maybe he just wants to get something done.  And let’s face it, that hasn’t seemed to bother you or your fellow committee members very much.

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.

I’ve never been a regular viewer of ‘American Idol,’ but whenever I did watch it, Simon Cowell, the ruthlessly acerbic judge, was the one whose comments I waited for, along with millions of other watchers.  I mean, nobody but the dimmest of couch potatoes perched on the edge of their chair thinking, “Gee, I wonder what Paula’s going to say?” 

Sadly, it’s just been announced that this season will be Cowell’s last as a judge on Idol.

Now I know he’s really busy producing other shows and creating stars and all that, but I have a job for him that I think would be perfect. 

That job?  Watching the performances of big bank executives when they testify before Congress and then issuing his summary judgments on the spot, in front of the cameras, on the Hill. 

We’ve seen these execs testify before and even the withering rage directed at them by various Congressmen came off as little more than firecrackers that didn’t go off.  Too many members of Congress are too deep in the pockets of these banks for their rage to do anything but sputter.

Simon, on the other hand, is not in anybody’s pocket.  He could—and would—call it as he sees it.  Wouldn’t you love to hear his scorn unleashed against these guys who think they can get away with whatever they want?   

Their performances, his remarks and their squirming could be packaged, put on Facebook and get millions of hits.   This could go a long way to producing real financial reform.

What do you think, Simon?  Want to give it a shot?