Robert Creamer at Huffington Post has an expose for his left-leaning readers: "Dirty Little Secrets Republicans Don't Want You to Know. What are these "dirty secrets" that about 40% of the population somehow hides from the other 60%?

Over the course of eight short years — between 2000 and 2008 — the Republicans methodically executed their plan to transform American society. They systematically transferred wealth from the middle class to the wealthiest two percent of Americans — slashing taxes for the wealthy.

They did? As best I can tell, the Bush tax cuts were, in fact, progressive, structurally favoring those further down the tax scale far more than those above. (Bush didn't even factor the wealthy in on his first rounds of tax cuts — only doing so after a year, after the economy failed to revive!) In addition, it seems that the proportion of the taxes paid by the wealthy has continued to increase during that time.*

They eviscerated the rules that held Wall Street, Big Oil and private insurance companies accountable to the public. They allowed and encouraged the recklessness of the big Wall Street banks that ultimately collapsed the economy and cost eight million Americans their jobs.

They did? Again, any examples? The only one I can think of is the repeal of Glass-Steagall by Bill Clinton, which happened well before Bush took office. I hear this charge a lot (and disagree that economic freedom is the cause of recessions, anyway) but I've never seen any backing for it. (I tend to think the growth of subprime mortgages was actually due to — can you believe it — federal policies and rules explicitly designed to promote the growth of subprime mortgages! But I'm clearly a moron.) And what of Sarbanes-Oxley, one of the most onerous financial regulatory acts in decades, passed in 2002 under Bush? Have we forgotten already? (Yes, apparently!)

And what does "Big Oil" have to do with the financial meltdown? Oh yeah, it doesn't, but he's tossing it in there to remind his readers that, somehow, Bush is also at fault for the spill in Gulf.

Telling addition, no?

They ignored exploding health care costs, tried to privatize Social Security, gave the drug companies open season to gouge American consumers and presided over a decline in real incomes averaging $2,000 per family.

The "exploding" health care costs have been "exploding" since the Carter administration, through both Democratic and Republican administrations. If "ignoring" them is unpopular, it seems "reforming" them has been doubly so, for both Hillary and Obama. Perhaps the American people don't want more government control over healthcare costs? (And the question remains as to whether said "reform" will actually lower or increase said prices. We're running the experiment now — check back soon!)

And if failing to "reform" the costs of one runaway government program is evil, then attempting to reform another (Social Security) is also evil, apparently! (What are the criteria here?) The author clearly also hopes his readers have forgotten that Al Gore made Social Security reform his campaign centerpiece just four years before Bush's attempt.

They entangled America in an enormously costly, unnecessary war in Iraq...

The Iraq war was a "dirty secret"? I thought most Americans were aware of it. In fact, wasn't Joe Biden just crowing about how it was such a great thing?

... pursued a directionless policy that left Afghanistan to fester...

If Bush's leadership in Afghanistan was "directionless", then how do you square that with left-leaning General McCrystal's complaints that Obama never called him even once (not to discuss policy, strategy, logistics, the weather ... nothing!) during his time in charge? What criteria is this author applying?

... and sullied America's good name throughout the world.

Um, reality check: the world hated us under Clinton. The world hated us under Bush. Except for Putin (who's beginning to positively looove Obama), the world still hates us, possibly even more now, if relations with the French, the British, the Chinese are any indicator.

The narrative given by the author is, undoubtedly, what many left-leaning voters believe. I've heard it time and time again. I don't want to believe that almost half of my citizens are this gullible, and this uninformed, and this forgetful.

And yet: where does it overlap reality? Bush as a government-slashing, deregulating, free-market capitalist? Republicans cut government, rather than spending like drunken sailors, growing government vastly? (Wasn't that even the main theme of the 2008 elections which swept in the current Democratic majority?) Democrats did nothing to encourage the growth of subprime mortgages? Europe is now in love with Obama?

Are there any facts to back such contentions? Is it this easy to fool left-leaning readers? You just tell them Bush deregulated everything, cite zero examples, and they believe you? Apparently so!

The author hints darkly that Republicans, if re-elected, will — horrors! — attempt to reform Social Security, privatize government-run health-care programs, and cut spending. How I wish it were true.

========

(* In the interest of fairness, "rebuttals" of the idea that the Bush tax cuts were "progressive", like this, far outrank the sources I cite. The problem is that the "rebuttal" doesn't refute the first link (claiming falsely that only the income of the wealthy rose, not their rate of taxation), completely ignores the second argument, and then argues that the cuts couldn't have been "progressive" because our government runs a deficit. Huh? They also attack the Bush tax cuts as not being progressive because other taxes weren't cut, or rose. Again: Huh??? If you find this persuasive, let me in on it. But even the rebuttal is so conflicted (it argues the tax code is "flat") that, even if it true, it hardly paints a picture of Bush shoveling money from the poor to the wealthy. In contrast, the writer above cites no backing whatsoever for his arguments.)