It's official! Past President George W. Bush is no longer the whipping boy for the Democratic Party's point-the-finger-at-someone-else-blame-game for the dismal state of the economy, foreign relations, national defense and especially the massive multi-trillion dollar budget deficit.

Appearing on Fox News Sunday yesterday, Maryland Democratic Representative Chris Van Hollen who is as much responsible for the dismal state of national affairs as anyone else, told Chris Wallace that the American people "can NOT choose to not pay the bills that THEY incurred."

What? Aside from the arrogance of that statement, not to mention the double negative, we have a president who has not come up with a single good idea for running the country. Our president can't prove who he was, who he is, or even where he was for a good portion of his pre-presidential life.

He has spent more money unsuccessfully bombing Libya to boost his "war-time president image" than it would cost to operate all the nation's military music organizations for an entire year, and in the context of this issue has increased the national debt beyond all federal debt accrued in the first 204 years of the nation’s history.

But Van Hollen says WE are to blame?

This mindless lemming - Van Hollen - is now blaming the American public for the reprehensible actions of an out-of-control federal government! Did he clear that with Barack Obama first?

Is this now the official line of the Democratic Party? That the American voting public is responsible for the actions of Congress and the Obama Administration? Is this a sick takeoff on that line from the movie Animal House? "Face it America, you screwed up! You elected us!"

What was amazing about this incredible change in Congressional direction, insofar as blaming anyone else for the failed policies of the Obama Administration, is that Wallace let it go without comment!

Van Hollen is the kind of guest on the Sunday morning talk shows who gives me the impetus to watch Holmes Inspection on the Home and Garden Channel even if I've already seen the episode. But I stayed tuned to Fox News Sunday yesterday because I wanted to see Herman Cain, who appeared after Van Hollen, and I'm glad I did.

Cain is a good man, and frankly I think he's a viable presidential candidate. He tripped up a little when he appeared on FNS earlier this year - he wasn't exactly sure what the Palestinian claim to Right of Return was all about in the continuing strife between Israel and the terrorist organization Hamas, but that is not a disqualifier in my opinion.

But on Sunday Cain did remarkably well, even though Wallace did everything he could to convince Cain to drop out of the race for the GOP nomination if he doesn't do well in the upcoming Iowa Straw Poll. Wallace kept referring to Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann's strong position in a number of polls leading up to the Iowa Straw Poll as the reason why Cain should drop out.

Guess which GOP presidential aspirant won the last Iowa Straw Poll? Mitt Romney! Guess where he ended up after the dust settled? Out of the race. He not only is not president, he wasn't even the ultimate GOP nominee.

The Iowa Straw Poll is a great place for candidates to get some national attention in the summer doldrums, but it hardly can be used as a national indicator of who is the best candidate. The straw poll precedes the Iowa Caucus which is held in January.

Know who won the 2008 GOP caucus in Iowa? Mike Huckabee. He out-polled Romney who only five months earlier was the darling of the Straw Poll. Oh, and Huckabee isn't president either, and he also was not the GOP nominee in 2008. In fact, the ultimate GOP nominee, John McCain, who isn't president either, didn't even participate in the Iowa Straw Poll last time.

I was somewhat curious about Wallace's insistence that Cain drop out of if he isn't at least a third-place finisher in the Iowa Straw Poll, especially since he ignored all the other candidates in the race for the GOP nomination and focused on Bachmann.

Now, I like her too, but this is way too early for me to be deciding who will get my vote although I can tell you, I'd rather go with one of the newer candidates, maybe Cain if he can hang in there, than any of the so-called "establishment" candidates. The establishment isn't doing very well for us, in either party, and I believe some fresh blood, new ideas and an absence of hidden ties to power brokers is the way to really get America out of this mess we're in.

I also noticed something else about Bachmann in the past couple of weeks that is worthy of comment. She has flubbed the answers on a couple of issues, showing that even though she currently holds office that doesn't make her perfect either.

Know what the media did when she goofed? Nothing. They gave her a pass. Know what that means? The mainstream media wants Bachmann to be the GOP candidate, probably so they can pull these errors and a bunch of other issues out of the closet at the appropriate time and use them to boost Obama over her.

Can you imagine what would happen to Sarah Palin if she erred in public? Hell, the media goes after her even when she's right, such as the Paul Revere issue where she proved that she knows her American history and the media only knows what it rewrites.

But for Bachmann, silence.

Go ahead call me a conspiracy theorist. That doesn't mean there aren't conspiracies. It only takes two people to conspire you know - and that's the law, not opinion.

Herman Cain wasn't the least bit flustered by Wallace yesterday, which means I'll keep watching and waiting, and hoping that maybe by the time we get to primary votes in my state, he will be a strong option.

There was one other segment of FNS yesterday that is worthy of comment because it too involved a commentator who didn't get flustered.

The second half-hour of the show is given over largely to a panel discussion of the current issues, which I used to like a lot, especially when Brit Hume was on every week because he was a great counter-point to the liberal Juan Williams.

Hume wasn't there Sunday, but Williams was, and so was another liberal, John Podesta. Opposing them was Liz Cheney, daughter of the former vice president. I like Liz Cheney, both for her extensive knowledge of government and world issues, and her toughness.

During the discussion Liz was making a point on Obama's budget deficits and the federal debt, and a good one too, when both Podesta and Williams who flanked her at the table, jumped ugly all over her, a decibel or so just below shouting at her. In the live version of the show it went on for at least 10 seconds, maybe 15, but she never wavered. (In the taped version of the show show in mid-afternoon and early evening the confrontation appeared to have been edited down to only a few seconds, but in the original morning version, it went on longer.)

In a classic display of the way liberal men really view women, they not only tried to beat up on her, it took two of them to do it ... and she kicked their asses. Wallace ultimately stepped in to shut them down and let her speak, but frankly, he wasn't needed.

So kudos to Liz Cheney for standing her ground and taking it right back to Podesta and Williams, and shame on them for both their approach, their lack of knowledge and their attempts to bully a woman to cover up their weaknesses. Finally congratulations to former President George W. Bush for finally shaking the "it's his fault" monkey off his back.

Want to see one reason why our country is so deep in debt? Take a minute and watch the video below. Warning: it will probably make you angry.