The Weekly Standard’s Jay Cost has a curious idea about “liberal myths” and, specifically, Democrats’ intent to raise taxes on wealthy Americans:

[I]f the Democrats were really serious about hiking taxes on the wealthy, why didn’t they do it when they had a filibuster-proof majority in Congress? Why wait until now, when there is no chance of passing anything like the Buffett Rule?

The reason: Democrats do not actually want to burden the wealthy, who are now regular contributors to their campaigns; they just want the issue to run against the Republicans.

This is curious, because, in December 2010, the Weekly Standard seemed pretty miffed that House Democrats voted to extend the Bush tax cuts only for those making less than $250,000 — this, as the Standard tut-tutted, “in the middle of hard economic times and high unemployment rates.”

It’s true that Senate Democrats bailed on a companion vote. But it’s common knowledge that Sen. Harry Reid and co. were nervous about a defection of moderates like Ben Nelson of Nebraska and the lame duck Evan Bayh of Indiana.

Eventually the Bush tax cuts were extended, in toto, for two years.

A headline on one of neocon blogger Jennifer Rubin’s posts said it all: “Liberal Democrats don’t matter, Bush tax cuts extended.”

This seriously complicates Cost’s notion of a “liberal myth,” does it not?

There’s also the fact that rich Republican donors, purportedly readying a $1 billion war-chest on Mitt Romney’s behalf, are behaving as though they take President Obama and congressional Democrats at their word.

If Obama is actually not in their back pockets, they have apparently failed to notify Jay Cost.