There were only a handful of cases when the GOP wasn't all on the same page and those are really the only significant times Bush was stopped on anything (meaning it was the GOP base, not the Dems that stopped him).

Immigration
Harriet Miers
Dubai Ports

That's all i can think of.

When was it, exactly, that Republican endured "warring ideological factions"?

Immigration.

Spending. Though that was more noise than action.

When was it, exactly, that Republican endured "warring ideological factions"?

I think it was in 2003. There was some guy in upstate New York who was beginning to think he wouldn't vote for Bush in 2004. Outside of that, not much.

Duh. Read the post and all the links...THEN comment.

I see Steve M had that covered...

Mr Furious is right on target.

I'd also note that in those few instances of division between Bush and the GOP, the party was to Bush's right, rather than the other way around. This is not a party that's going to find its way back to the center anytime soon.

Shhhhh.

Let's not tell the wingnuts they're crazy.

Let them get WAY out into the wilderness. Salvation is over the next hill! To the right!

what the gop did is to paper over their divisions in the interest of converting to a parliamentary party.

but the incredible unwillingness of our pundit class to give up on their standard lines of discussion remains an amazing aspect of our contemporary political discourse.

When was the GOP's factional warfare?

Oh, I think it was about a week before the Democratic primary when McCain told the GOP he intended to pick Joe Lieberman as his VP candidate. That was the beginning of the sundering of the GOP we're seeing now.

Isn't it funny how one pathetic pissant from Connecticut can cause so much division in both parties?

In the spirit of bipartisanship, the Democrats and Republicans should get together and expel him.

It's a lot more interesting to say that a party lost elections because of destructive internal factionalism than to say that it lost because people realized its ideas were terrible.

A week or ten days ago, Rachel Maddow said (if I recall rightly) something about Steve Benen, "and what's not to like (love?) about Steve Benen?" My sentiments exactly. Steve: such a smart post, one of literally thousands that have informed me and, despite often grim news, buoyed my spirits. Consider this a belated thank you for your virtual company on this long long haul of political anxiety and, sometimes, anguish. As for Cillizza: his comment is nuts, without foundation in fact, etc. etc. and also oddly skewed to side, somehow, with the "good" Republican, as if there were any left. Anyway, thanks. I always get uneasy when his pleasant face looms on Olbermann or another show: he's smart, he's there, but he's often off.

The Democratic faction of the Democratic Party cannot win national debates with the establishmentarians of the party. The Democratic faction of the Democratic Party should concentrate on local politics, especially now that the national elections are over. They have very little influence nationally, and the energy used to influence national policies is a waste of time and only creates frustration. It is better to use that energy locally, where it has a better chance of succeeding.

Did Bush end up vetoing one bill while the Republicans controlled both houses of congress, or was the final count zero?

I think Chris Cillizza needs to look that up.

What about the middle paragraph?

There seem to be a significant number of ideologues amongst the progressive portion of the "netroots" getting all lathered up over the forgiving of Lieberman and "Clintonites" in the Obama administration.

These folks seem to have been laboring under the misconception that an Obama election would magically result in the imposition of their ideals and the purging of infidels.

Now, in the wake of the Lieberman vote, the apparent appointment of Holder, Emmanuel, and perhaps Clinton the ideologues seem ready to slash and burn. Fortunately, they are few.

"In the spirit of bipartisanship, the Democrats and Republicans should get together and expel him."

Now that's change we can all believe in.

Steve, I engaged JNS on your post over at Swampland.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/11/19/house-hop-leadership-elections/#comment-21929

I thought Paul Greenberg's "prescription for conservatives" yesterday was interesting. He said the pendulum swings back and forth. His advice seemed to be just be patient and wait for it to swing back. Also wait for the Dems to screw it up again themselves.
I think he is way underestimating Obama's ability to lead. Our new President isn't concerned in getting even. He is going to use the talents and ability of as many people as he can. regardless of any personal issues. I am sooo impressed!

Chris Brown is right! Anyone who disagrees with Obama or any other Democrat in any way is a netroots ideologue who blogs in pajamas in their parents basement and should be marginalized and ignored.

I mean, until we need their money of course.

By the way, it's Emanuel. One m.

No what you have is lazy journalism.

It is a canard of journalists that they have to be 'balanced' so we cannot accuse one party of internal ideological warfare without accusing other party of same.

If, Paul Greenberg said that about the swing of pendulums and did not credit Arthur Schlessinger, shame on him.

Mr Schlessinger wrote extensively about pendulum swings at the time Reagan came into office in '81.

Steve writes: "In our reality, GOP policy makers were in line with the Bush White House every step of the way, and voted with the president's wishes throughout the first six years of his presidency."

Of course, the same can be said for Dem "policy makers" who, in the majority of not, enables Bush through sins of omission and commission to this day. Sadly, only Dems love this kind of bipartisanship. Look to the Rethugs to give Obama a lot of flack while Dems sit around singing Kumbayah. I fear we're in for a lot of disappointment. Even Joe is forgiven and Daschle is up for a cabinet post.

Too bad we can't just lump dupes like Cillizza in with the clowns who write for the far right blogs and publications and simply ignore his insane and/or mindless blabbering.

Asked what it would mean if Lieberman kept his chairmanship, one Senate Democratic aide said bluntly: "The left has been foiled again. They can rant and rage but they still do not put the fear into folks to actually change their votes. Their influence would be in question."

One of the commenters on Balloon-Juice.com had a good call on this quote: it's not a random "Senate Democratic aide." It's almost certainly Lieberman's aide Marshall Wittman, who's had it in for the netroots since before Lieberman got defeated in his primary and who can never pass up an opportunity to run us down in the media.

No need to get all upset about what someone who's desperate to marginalize the netroots says about us.

Actually, defeat came prior to "warring factions" for the GOP. It does appear that they have some now, though.

One way to clarify is to ask Chris Cillizza who were in the factions and what the issues were. Maybe there's some private vendetta that has never been aired. I'm guessing the idea of Republican internecine struggles is just more of the usual vacancy from the GOP "preposterous notions for hire" class.

Chris Cizilla, Tom "The Hammer" Delay
Tom, Chris.

Tom, Chris here says the GOP leadership was a meandering willy nilly gang of misfit yokels that couldn't get their act together.

You concur?

jonah, the lesser, goldberg assures us that the folks at NRO didn't walk in lockstep with bush either.....surely you'll find him credible...

Yet everyone fails to mention the obvious. Obama ran on Tax Cuts. That is a Republican strong hold. He won't actually deliver them, but neither did Bill Clinton. Even though Obama is a leftist, he ran as a Centrist if not a bit right. It was all Marketing. It was impossible to cut through the clutter and the 95% Tax Cut Lie resonated with those willing to suspend disbelief on his record and believe it.

Yet everyone fails to mention the obvious. -BiasedGirl

That's because what you wrote is not obvious, it's bullshit.

I think there was a big smack-down between the far right and the really, really far right on January 27 in one of the heavily wooded areas of Rock Creek Park. Despite being grossly outnumbered, the far right, lead by its standard bearer (and extremely experienced infighter) John McCain executed a perfect undercut while the really, really far right squabbled about just what blows to land in what order. As a result, the really, really far right called "uncle" pretty quickly after the fight began, awarding the Florida primary and thus the nomination to John McCain. Chris was the only media (medium?) notified, but as a condition, he swore only to write about it in general terms.

It's a lot more interesting to say that a party lost elections because of destructive internal factionalism than to say that it lost because people realized its ideas were terrible.

It also does not require publishing a judgment call that will get a lot of rabid right-wingers sending you and your editor a bunch of nasty email. These journos are nothing if not well-trained in avoidance procedures.

It is important to remember when dealing with traditional media sources that republicans rule!

The last president to have his party in control of congress was Jimmy Carter, er Bill Clinton - and that didn't work out too well. Nevermind reality.

jonah, the lesser, goldberg assures us that the folks at NRO didn't walk in lockstep with bush either.....surely you'll find him credible...

Interesting. Does Jonah mean before or after the recent NRO purge of those who became upset at the appointment of the clearly incompetent Palin?

Now that the purge is over (it is over, isn't it) how many of the survivors are going to poke their heads out of their holes and write anything not throughly vetted in advance?

And it's not like the purgees were long-time heretics. With the possible exception of Frum, they only got frisky during the week or two right after McCain's disastrous decision to appoint Palin. [Though since I generally can't stomach their regurgitated White House talking points on a regular basis, I may well have missed some dissident writing there.]

I'm seeing a shift to the Left in Congress -- much more in the Senate than I ever expected -- and the upshot of this is that the Conservative Democrats Obama brings into his administration could make the major political split one of Congress = Liberal versus Administration = Conservative Dem.

That would certainly be an amazing change from the Bush administration and all that has gone before.

I think it's also fair to add that in light of this being very odd, it behooves Congressional Liberal Democrats to move quickly since this situation isn't likely to remain so favorable after 2010 elections. It's a once-in-a-lifetime situation and opportunity.

Use this opportunity and use it wisely.