When it comes to politicians in general, it’s extremely difficult to avoid using obscenities. In fact, when it comes to left-wing politicians, I find it takes every last bit of will power I possess. Really, aside from those occasions when I’m cut off in traffic by some yutz who’s busy texting or twittering or when I commit an unforced error on the tennis court, I’m not given to cursing. But five minutes of liberal blather and I find myself turning into a reincarnated George Carlin.

My problem with left-wingers isn’t simply that I believe they’re wrong about everything, but that they’re such blatant hypocrites. They not only don’t say what they mean, but even in the face of objective evidence, they will deny having said what they said and will never admit they made a mistake. What’s more, they will condemn conservatives for having done and said what they, themselves, said and did. That includes demanding regime change in Iraq, voting to invade Iraq, making racist remarks and engaging in voter fraud.

Those on the Left incessantly blame George W. Bush for the financial meltdown even though it was primarily Christopher Dodd, Barney Frank and Barack Obama, along with their congressional cronies, who forced the banks and lending institutions to give home loans to people who could barely afford to rent a cave. For good measure, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both of which had contributed generously to the campaign coffers of Obama, Frank and Dodd, turned a blind eye to the insane practice.

Those who support progressive politicians are prone to be guided by their desire to be regarded as compassionate even though, time and again, history shows the end results to be catastrophic. Liberals who want the federal government to run every aspect of our lives because they’re convinced that is the path to utopia, are certifiably nuts. The reason I say that is because even if they were correct in believing that Washington, D.C., should be all-powerful, half the time all of that unlimited power will be in the hands of Republicans! If I’m terrified of a government run by liberals, why aren’t they equally fearful of one led by conservatives?

It doesn’t surprise me that single women without children inevitably favor the Left. They are, after all, generally inexperienced when it comes to thinking about anyone but themselves. As a result, they are quite content paying lip service to a federal government that will take pretty near every responsibility off their shoulders, leaving them free to concentrate on their careers, available men and their hair.

With Washington doling out tax dollars to the poor and needy, they don’t even have to bother donating to charity. However, it does surprise me how many single men feel the same way. In the past, I used to wonder where all the girly men came from, but then I remembered 50 years worth of rock concerts where young guys would shamelessly stand and gently sway while holding lighted candles aloft. Where, I’d like to know, are the Hell’s Angels when you really need them?

A recent Rasmussen poll showed that 45% of us believe a group of people selected at random from the telephone book would do a better job of addressing the nation’s problems than the current Congress, while 36% disagree and 19% are undecided. The 36% are clearly hopeless cases, but I think I could win over the 19% who are on the fence by pointing out that such big wigs as Pelosi, Reid, Boxer, Waxman, Murtha, Grayson and Rangel, aren’t listed in the phone book.

I am not a big fan of John McCain because I don’t believe that a Republican – let alone a Republican presidential candidate – should be in favor of shutting down Gitmo and offering amnesty to illegal aliens or opposing enhanced interrogations and drilling in ANWR. Having said that, I would like to use a baseball bat on the NY Times’ Frank Rich for having written that Sen. McCain “epitomizes the unpatriotic opposition.” Apparently, in some addled minds, spending 30 years at the NY Times, going to plays and pontificating, trumps five and a half years residence at the Hanoi Hilton.

Finally, can I respectfully ask that Barack Obama shuts up and not deliver a speech for, say, the next half hour?

It’s not just the sound of his voice that grates on my nerves, it’s all the damn lies he spouts. It’s the constant jibber-jabber about transparency, about bi-partisanship and putting an end to pork barrel politics. It’s about announcing that there will be no place for lobbyists in the Obama administration and then rolling out the red carpet for 30 of the weasels. It’s also about painting Goldman Sachs as evil incarnate and then surrounding himself with a slew of advisors who are – gasp! – former Goldman Sachs executives.

Where, we should ask ourselves, does the president muster sufficient chutzpah to blame Republicans for obstructionism when his own party has overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate? For all the talk about Scott Brown’s costing Obama that magical 60th vote, he had 60 votes for over a year and, let us not forget, it only takes 51 votes to pass most bills. But even with 60 Democrats in the Senate, Harry Reid’s bribes and Nancy Pelosi’s magical pole vault, Obama was unable to get CastroCare passed.

I only wish I could give credit to the GOP, but it was the American people, otherwise known as astroturfers and tea-baggers, who stopped that runaway freight train.

Finally, proving that I can be every bit as bi-partisan as Barack Obama, is it too much to ask of conservative pundits that they stop telling us that the president gives great speeches? I happen to know a great speech when I hear or read one. Some of them have been given by Jesus Christ, Abe Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan and even by Franklin Roosevelt.

But, anyone, after all, can read lines off a script, but the one thing that makes a speech memorable is that you believe that the words are coming straight from the heart.

Frankly, I don’t even know if President Obama has a heart or merely an agenda. What I do know is that I, for one, have yet to hear him give a single address, unless it concerned the redistribution of wealth, the glorification of unions or the nationalization of entire industries, that wasn’t entirely contradicted by his actions.