archer

Build a man a fire, you'll warm him for a day.
 
Set a man on fire, you'll warm him for the rest of his life.

Bill Gates is pulled over by a police officer one night after his car is seen swerving on the highway.
 
The police officer asks, "Have you had anything to drink tonight, sir?"
 
Bill says, "Absolutely not, officer."
 
The cop says, "Can you please count backwards from 10 for me?"
•
Bill replies, "10, 8, 7, Vista, XP, ME, 2000, NT, 98, 95, 3, 2, 1."

AG Barr has already stated that nothing is going to come of the Hunter Biden investigation.  If anyone was going to make a real case for it, it'd be him. 
 
As for the hysteria about "censorship", the tech platforms in question made their policies about unsubstantiated and/or illegally acquired information known months ago, and the hysterical people knew it.  This particular fake October surprise is so sloppy, it's pretty clear that the point was not to smear the Bidens but to manufacture anti-media hysteria in viewers.
 
The real question, as Archer linked, is where did the laptop really come from?  (Admittedly, it's kind of a rhetorical question, since we're all pretty sure we know the answer.)

More good news.  My friend who got the Coronavirus last week (confirmed positive on Tuesday) was already feeling better by Thursday.
 
Granted he's reasonably young and fit so he was ultra-low risk.

A teacher asked his class how many of them were Trump fans. Not quite knowing what a Trump fan is, but wanting to be loved by the teacher, all of the kids raised their hands, except Little Johnny.
 
The teacher asked Little Johnny why did you decide to be different... again.
 
Little Johnny said, “Because I'm not a Trump fan."
 
“Why aren't you a Trump fan?"
 
Johnny said, “Because I'm a Democrat."
 
The teacher asked him why he is a Democrat.
 
Little Johnny replied, “Well my mom is a Democrat and my dad is a Democrat, so I'm a Democrat."
 
The teacher, annoyed by this answer, asked him, "If your mother was an idiot and your father a jerk, what would that make you?"
 
Little Johnny replied, “A Trump fan."

I voted "Sometimes" and agree with what Chris Goodwin says.
 
I also specifically add if you take knockback that moves your character that it stops incantations and gestures.  I can accept that during magical training that they will have practiced being hit, even repeatedly, without interrupting their incantations and gestures.
 
But I have a hard time picturing someone being so disciplined as to be able to continue such things after being walloped so hard that they're literally flying through the air some number of hexes. 
 
 

Just completed the absentee ballot, taking extra, extra care to fill in the circles properly, and letting it FULLY dry now.  Gel inks, ya know.  I definitely do not want to give them a reason to DQ this ballot.
 
 

I started off trying to do that in the primaries to see if I might do better voting as a Republican and getting in sane people as nominees in that party rather than letting rabidly pro-Trump people get every nomination.
 
But everyone I researched ended up being rabidly pro-Trump. I didn't make it through to the end of the races since I could see it was useless and decided to vote in the Democrat primaries to try to elect the sanest (or best policy) people there instead.
 
The Republican Party here over the course of four years went from being mostly establishment Republicans who weren't very ideological but who gave lip-service to the Religious Right and a very few small-government types...to a hell of a lot of open lunatics who give the impression they're one missed Prozac away from donning their Klan robes and going to rallies.
 
But good lord, risking three years in jail to solicit money on C-Span. It probably wasn't even carried on any network which his potential donors would watch.
 
If they really don't care anymore, the only reason why they wouldn't care is that they aren't planning on having a government, as we know it, existing after the election.

I started off trying to do that in the primaries to see if I might do better voting as a Republican and getting in sane people as nominees in that party rather than letting rabidly pro-Trump people get every nomination.
 
But everyone I researched ended up being rabidly pro-Trump. I didn't make it through to the end of the races since I could see it was useless and decided to vote in the Democrat primaries to try to elect the sanest (or best policy) people there instead.
 
The Republican Party here over the course of four years went from being mostly establishment Republicans who weren't very ideological but who gave lip-service to the Religious Right and a very few small-government types...to a hell of a lot of open lunatics who give the impression they're one missed Prozac away from donning their Klan robes and going to rallies.
 
But good lord, risking three years in jail to solicit money on C-Span. It probably wasn't even carried on any network which his potential donors would watch.
 
If they really don't care anymore, the only reason why they wouldn't care is that they aren't planning on having a government, as we know it, existing after the election.

I started off trying to do that in the primaries to see if I might do better voting as a Republican and getting in sane people as nominees in that party rather than letting rabidly pro-Trump people get every nomination.
 
But everyone I researched ended up being rabidly pro-Trump. I didn't make it through to the end of the races since I could see it was useless and decided to vote in the Democrat primaries to try to elect the sanest (or best policy) people there instead.
 
The Republican Party here over the course of four years went from being mostly establishment Republicans who weren't very ideological but who gave lip-service to the Religious Right and a very few small-government types...to a hell of a lot of open lunatics who give the impression they're one missed Prozac away from donning their Klan robes and going to rallies.
 
But good lord, risking three years in jail to solicit money on C-Span. It probably wasn't even carried on any network which his potential donors would watch.
 
If they really don't care anymore, the only reason why they wouldn't care is that they aren't planning on having a government, as we know it, existing after the election.

Got mine a few days ago;  I need to do much the same thing, but I gotta admit that the way the Republicans have thrown ethics to the wind prejudices me against them at ANY level right now.  

We received our ballots a few weeks ago, IIRC.  I've filled mine out but still need to drop it off.  While we still have the option to vote straight party ticket, I chose not to... and then once I was done noticed that in all cases I have voted for Democrats (though I had done this after considering the choices in each case). 
 
This is our son-in-law's first election in which to vote, and he's choosing to do so in person rather than by absentee ballot.  We've pointed him toward websites to get a sample ballot for his address, so he can know in advance all the candidates he'll need to choose from and the proposals he'll need to decide upon.  I'm interested to know whether he'll encounter any "poll watchers" (official or otherwise) on election day, and if so how they'll behave.

Just got back from early voting.
 
2.5 hour wait in line.
 
The voting site was an indoor mall with the line going down the length of the mall then looping back on itself. It might have been somewhat pleasant if the mall had its air conditioning on. As it was, there were hundreds of people and the air so stuffy that people were trying to find things to use to fan themselves. 
 
During the last 30 minutes, I noticed twenty people (I counted) who came in, looked at the length of the line, then turned around and walked out. I hadn't thought to look before that so I'm sure that was only a fraction of the people who walked off without attempting to vote. Also, that was only at one of the two doors which people could use to enter the mall so I'm sure a lot of people were giving up before they properly got started. 
 
Inside the early voting room, there was one election judge and two people who were signing people in to vote. After signing in, I was directed to see a Vietnamese lady for the next step. Her only English appeared to be "take piece of paper" and "go to voting machine" because she didn't appear to understand my question when I asked her if the blank piece of paper was the ballot and didn't attempt any response at all.
 
At the voting machine, they'd removed all of the signs which are normally adhered to the machine telling you how to insert your ballot and what you are supposed to do. You were left on your own to figure it out. (Turns out you were supposed to randomly use the stylus to touch the screen until you got an error message which took you back to the initial screen which had instructions on it.)
 
Once I got the ballot up, the list of candidates in each race was always the Republican candidate first, followed by the Democrat candidate, followed by third party candidates. In previous elections, the order of the candidates in each race was randomly determined because the candidate appearing first on the ballot tends to get more votes because he's listed first on the ballot.
 
I've got to contact the local party and the Secretary of State's office to inquire about that but I'm too exhausted to deal with phone calls at the moment.

Just got back from early voting.
 
2.5 hour wait in line.
 
The voting site was an indoor mall with the line going down the length of the mall then looping back on itself. It might have been somewhat pleasant if the mall had its air conditioning on. As it was, there were hundreds of people and the air so stuffy that people were trying to find things to use to fan themselves. 
 
During the last 30 minutes, I noticed twenty people (I counted) who came in, looked at the length of the line, then turned around and walked out. I hadn't thought to look before that so I'm sure that was only a fraction of the people who walked off without attempting to vote. Also, that was only at one of the two doors which people could use to enter the mall so I'm sure a lot of people were giving up before they properly got started. 
 
Inside the early voting room, there was one election judge and two people who were signing people in to vote. After signing in, I was directed to see a Vietnamese lady for the next step. Her only English appeared to be "take piece of paper" and "go to voting machine" because she didn't appear to understand my question when I asked her if the blank piece of paper was the ballot and didn't attempt any response at all.
 
At the voting machine, they'd removed all of the signs which are normally adhered to the machine telling you how to insert your ballot and what you are supposed to do. You were left on your own to figure it out. (Turns out you were supposed to randomly use the stylus to touch the screen until you got an error message which took you back to the initial screen which had instructions on it.)
 
Once I got the ballot up, the list of candidates in each race was always the Republican candidate first, followed by the Democrat candidate, followed by third party candidates. In previous elections, the order of the candidates in each race was randomly determined because the candidate appearing first on the ballot tends to get more votes because he's listed first on the ballot.
 
I've got to contact the local party and the Secretary of State's office to inquire about that but I'm too exhausted to deal with phone calls at the moment.

Just got back from early voting.
 
2.5 hour wait in line.
 
The voting site was an indoor mall with the line going down the length of the mall then looping back on itself. It might have been somewhat pleasant if the mall had its air conditioning on. As it was, there were hundreds of people and the air so stuffy that people were trying to find things to use to fan themselves. 
 
During the last 30 minutes, I noticed twenty people (I counted) who came in, looked at the length of the line, then turned around and walked out. I hadn't thought to look before that so I'm sure that was only a fraction of the people who walked off without attempting to vote. Also, that was only at one of the two doors which people could use to enter the mall so I'm sure a lot of people were giving up before they properly got started. 
 
Inside the early voting room, there was one election judge and two people who were signing people in to vote. After signing in, I was directed to see a Vietnamese lady for the next step. Her only English appeared to be "take piece of paper" and "go to voting machine" because she didn't appear to understand my question when I asked her if the blank piece of paper was the ballot and didn't attempt any response at all.
 
At the voting machine, they'd removed all of the signs which are normally adhered to the machine telling you how to insert your ballot and what you are supposed to do. You were left on your own to figure it out. (Turns out you were supposed to randomly use the stylus to touch the screen until you got an error message which took you back to the initial screen which had instructions on it.)
 
Once I got the ballot up, the list of candidates in each race was always the Republican candidate first, followed by the Democrat candidate, followed by third party candidates. In previous elections, the order of the candidates in each race was randomly determined because the candidate appearing first on the ballot tends to get more votes because he's listed first on the ballot.
 
I've got to contact the local party and the Secretary of State's office to inquire about that but I'm too exhausted to deal with phone calls at the moment.

Just got back from early voting.
 
2.5 hour wait in line.
 
The voting site was an indoor mall with the line going down the length of the mall then looping back on itself. It might have been somewhat pleasant if the mall had its air conditioning on. As it was, there were hundreds of people and the air so stuffy that people were trying to find things to use to fan themselves. 
 
During the last 30 minutes, I noticed twenty people (I counted) who came in, looked at the length of the line, then turned around and walked out. I hadn't thought to look before that so I'm sure that was only a fraction of the people who walked off without attempting to vote. Also, that was only at one of the two doors which people could use to enter the mall so I'm sure a lot of people were giving up before they properly got started. 
 
Inside the early voting room, there was one election judge and two people who were signing people in to vote. After signing in, I was directed to see a Vietnamese lady for the next step. Her only English appeared to be "take piece of paper" and "go to voting machine" because she didn't appear to understand my question when I asked her if the blank piece of paper was the ballot and didn't attempt any response at all.
 
At the voting machine, they'd removed all of the signs which are normally adhered to the machine telling you how to insert your ballot and what you are supposed to do. You were left on your own to figure it out. (Turns out you were supposed to randomly use the stylus to touch the screen until you got an error message which took you back to the initial screen which had instructions on it.)
 
Once I got the ballot up, the list of candidates in each race was always the Republican candidate first, followed by the Democrat candidate, followed by third party candidates. In previous elections, the order of the candidates in each race was randomly determined because the candidate appearing first on the ballot tends to get more votes because he's listed first on the ballot.
 
I've got to contact the local party and the Secretary of State's office to inquire about that but I'm too exhausted to deal with phone calls at the moment.

The problem with that is the mindset of some Trump supporters.
 
A good portion of Trumps base will latch on any crazy theory and will ignore any fact checking or debunking done. They will cry, "fake news" or "deep state lies" and endorse and spread these false narratives to the point of belligerence when continually shown the flaws in their new dogma.
 
Then there is the even more despicable crowd that embraces this as a way to more followers to their power while knowing they are pushing propaganda.
 
Better to deny fuel for those fires at the source, than to run around trying to squelch hundreds of blazes.

The lies, incompetence, and corruption of the current presidential administration and Republican roster of legislators has been on display so many times, I'm no longer inclined to pretend impartiality or give them the benefit of the doubt. They had their chance to show their quality, and they blew it spectacularly. They have no credibility left.

Some further analysis, indicating that the emails were forged.
 
https://eddiekrassenstein.medium.com/alleged-hunter-biden-email-from-giuliani-appears-forged-2d55b08140cc

Too much crap in orbit. 
 
I'd love to see one of these private companies set up a salvage operation, pull the bigger stuff back down to Earth, and sell it off as collectibles.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvage_1

To expand on that last thought, it's taken me decades to figure out exactly why I think it is that the people who were drawn in to run for Republican office haven't grasped the idea of compromise. But here it is (I'm very rambling tonight but hopefully this makes sense).
 
In the 1970's, the Republican party had moved away from ideology. It was vaguely pro-business but it was difficult to point to a set of principles and pull together a group of voters to tell them "we're moving in this direction".
 
Gingrich won election to the House in '76 or '78 and immediately began agitating for the party to do something other than being content to be out in the cold: the last time the Republicans had been in control in the House had been in 1958. Gingrich had the idea if the party could pitch a set of beliefs to the voters, that it could build a governing coalition. And that his set of beliefs were the perfect ones to pitch.
 
When Reagan ran for president in 1980, Gingrich was part of the group which helped Reagan pull together an economic message (instead of the mess of statements which contributed to Reagan's 1976 presidential campaign being narrowly unsuccessful). When Reagan won the nomination, he put Gingrich in control of his national outreach to Republican congressional campaigns, which was unusual for such a junior member of the House to get such an important assignment.
 
From that point forward, Gingrich was in a continual guerilla war against the Republican leaders in the House, who mainly wanted Gingrich and his growing number of elected members to go away. 
 
Unfortunately, I think a lot of the problems started here in 1980, not with Gingrich but with Reagan's winning coalition.
 
Gingrich's idea of an ideology was small government, limited spending, sound monetary policy, strong national defense, etc.
 
But as Reagan was running for president, the Moral Majority group had started up mainly among evangelical Protestants and Reagan welcomed them in as part of his coalition. Gingrich didn't even consider himself to be a Christian at that point in time (and wouldn't convert to Catholicism for a couple of decades afterward).
 
But Gingrich welcomed the evangelicals to the party and continued the message that you have to fight for your ideals and make the best deals you can. But most of the people who were coming into the party were evangelical Protestants first and Republicans second. Their religion had started because of their perception that Catholicism had compromised the original ideology of the church. 
 
Those newcomers were also pushing for various culture wars issues and Reagan invited them into the party on that basis. They accepted the vague pro-business stance of the traditional Republican establishment. They also accepted, at least to a limited extent, what Gingrich considered to be ideology.
 
But they blended it together in their minds to be THIS IS IDEOLOGY in the same sense that they considered their religious beliefs to be ideology.
 
So when the people Gingrich recruited to run for office actually won a majority in the House in 1994, he brought along a lot of people who believed on some level that compromise was a sin, an evil: compromising your political ideology is no different than compromising your religious ideology.
 
That seemed to catch Gingrich by surprise, since he had been "preaching the gospel" of cutting the best deal possible all along and that difference between Gingrich and the Republicans (who he had helped into office) played a role in his eventual ouster.
 
Ironically, their ideology has continued to evolve with them tossing out, little by little, almost everything Gingrich had considered to be ideology. And their culture wars message has called every white supremacist out of the woodwork to be active members of the party (greatly accelerated by the Trump presidency).
 
But their belief that compromise is somehow evil remains.
 
And as I've mentioned before, when earmarks were banned in the 2000's so that individual members of Congress couldn't be enticed into compromise, things really started falling apart. 
 
< /rambling >

To expand on that last thought, it's taken me decades to figure out exactly why I think it is that the people who were drawn in to run for Republican office haven't grasped the idea of compromise. But here it is (I'm very rambling tonight but hopefully this makes sense).
 
In the 1970's, the Republican party had moved away from ideology. It was vaguely pro-business but it was difficult to point to a set of principles and pull together a group of voters to tell them "we're moving in this direction".
 
Gingrich won election to the House in '76 or '78 and immediately began agitating for the party to do something other than being content to be out in the cold: the last time the Republicans had been in control in the House had been in 1958. Gingrich had the idea if the party could pitch a set of beliefs to the voters, that it could build a governing coalition. And that his set of beliefs were the perfect ones to pitch.
 
When Reagan ran for president in 1980, Gingrich was part of the group which helped Reagan pull together an economic message (instead of the mess of statements which contributed to Reagan's 1976 presidential campaign being narrowly unsuccessful). When Reagan won the nomination, he put Gingrich in control of his national outreach to Republican congressional campaigns, which was unusual for such a junior member of the House to get such an important assignment.
 
From that point forward, Gingrich was in a continual guerilla war against the Republican leaders in the House, who mainly wanted Gingrich and his growing number of elected members to go away. 
 
Unfortunately, I think a lot of the problems started here in 1980, not with Gingrich but with Reagan's winning coalition.
 
Gingrich's idea of an ideology was small government, limited spending, sound monetary policy, strong national defense, etc.
 
But as Reagan was running for president, the Moral Majority group had started up mainly among evangelical Protestants and Reagan welcomed them in as part of his coalition. Gingrich didn't even consider himself to be a Christian at that point in time (and wouldn't convert to Catholicism for a couple of decades afterward).
 
But Gingrich welcomed the evangelicals to the party and continued the message that you have to fight for your ideals and make the best deals you can. But most of the people who were coming into the party were evangelical Protestants first and Republicans second. Their religion had started because of their perception that Catholicism had compromised the original ideology of the church. 
 
Those newcomers were also pushing for various culture wars issues and Reagan invited them into the party on that basis. They accepted the vague pro-business stance of the traditional Republican establishment. They also accepted, at least to a limited extent, what Gingrich considered to be ideology.
 
But they blended it together in their minds to be THIS IS IDEOLOGY in the same sense that they considered their religious beliefs to be ideology.
 
So when the people Gingrich recruited to run for office actually won a majority in the House in 1994, he brought along a lot of people who believed on some level that compromise was a sin, an evil: compromising your political ideology is no different than compromising your religious ideology.
 
That seemed to catch Gingrich by surprise, since he had been "preaching the gospel" of cutting the best deal possible all along and that difference between Gingrich and the Republicans (who he had helped into office) played a role in his eventual ouster.
 
Ironically, their ideology has continued to evolve with them tossing out, little by little, almost everything Gingrich had considered to be ideology. And their culture wars message has called every white supremacist out of the woodwork to be active members of the party (greatly accelerated by the Trump presidency).
 
But their belief that compromise is somehow evil remains.
 
And as I've mentioned before, when earmarks were banned in the 2000's so that individual members of Congress couldn't be enticed into compromise, things really started falling apart. 
 
< /rambling >

To expand on that last thought, it's taken me decades to figure out exactly why I think it is that the people who were drawn in to run for Republican office haven't grasped the idea of compromise. But here it is (I'm very rambling tonight but hopefully this makes sense).
 
In the 1970's, the Republican party had moved away from ideology. It was vaguely pro-business but it was difficult to point to a set of principles and pull together a group of voters to tell them "we're moving in this direction".
 
Gingrich won election to the House in '76 or '78 and immediately began agitating for the party to do something other than being content to be out in the cold: the last time the Republicans had been in control in the House had been in 1958. Gingrich had the idea if the party could pitch a set of beliefs to the voters, that it could build a governing coalition. And that his set of beliefs were the perfect ones to pitch.
 
When Reagan ran for president in 1980, Gingrich was part of the group which helped Reagan pull together an economic message (instead of the mess of statements which contributed to Reagan's 1976 presidential campaign being narrowly unsuccessful). When Reagan won the nomination, he put Gingrich in control of his national outreach to Republican congressional campaigns, which was unusual for such a junior member of the House to get such an important assignment.
 
From that point forward, Gingrich was in a continual guerilla war against the Republican leaders in the House, who mainly wanted Gingrich and his growing number of elected members to go away. 
 
Unfortunately, I think a lot of the problems started here in 1980, not with Gingrich but with Reagan's winning coalition.
 
Gingrich's idea of an ideology was small government, limited spending, sound monetary policy, strong national defense, etc.
 
But as Reagan was running for president, the Moral Majority group had started up mainly among evangelical Protestants and Reagan welcomed them in as part of his coalition. Gingrich didn't even consider himself to be a Christian at that point in time (and wouldn't convert to Catholicism for a couple of decades afterward).
 
But Gingrich welcomed the evangelicals to the party and continued the message that you have to fight for your ideals and make the best deals you can. But most of the people who were coming into the party were evangelical Protestants first and Republicans second. Their religion had started because of their perception that Catholicism had compromised the original ideology of the church. 
 
Those newcomers were also pushing for various culture wars issues and Reagan invited them into the party on that basis. They accepted the vague pro-business stance of the traditional Republican establishment. They also accepted, at least to a limited extent, what Gingrich considered to be ideology.
 
But they blended it together in their minds to be THIS IS IDEOLOGY in the same sense that they considered their religious beliefs to be ideology.
 
So when the people Gingrich recruited to run for office actually won a majority in the House in 1994, he brought along a lot of people who believed on some level that compromise was a sin, an evil: compromising your political ideology is no different than compromising your religious ideology.
 
That seemed to catch Gingrich by surprise, since he had been "preaching the gospel" of cutting the best deal possible all along and that difference between Gingrich and the Republicans (who he had helped into office) played a role in his eventual ouster.
 
Ironically, their ideology has continued to evolve with them tossing out, little by little, almost everything Gingrich had considered to be ideology. And their culture wars message has called every white supremacist out of the woodwork to be active members of the party (greatly accelerated by the Trump presidency).
 
But their belief that compromise is somehow evil remains.
 
And as I've mentioned before, when earmarks were banned in the 2000's so that individual members of Congress couldn't be enticed into compromise, things really started falling apart. 
 
< /rambling >

Gingrich's credo was to push as hard as you can to get as much as you can, then cut a deal.
 
The problem, IMO, was that the people who came into office with him didn't understand that the reason to "push as hard as you can to get as much as you can" was to cut the best deal possible and not to hold out forever in an attempt to get absolutely everything that you want.
 
Gingrich as Speaker was raked over the coals in his own party for the deals he cut with Democrats, deals which served to move the existing Republican agenda forward. Boehner, Tom De Lay, Dick Armey and Bill Paxon came together to force him out. They were able to do that because Gingrich's deal-making was widely unpopular in the fairly-new Republican majority.
 
If you read Gingrich's writings or listen to his tape series training people how to run for public office, he very much pushed the idea of cutting deals and the need to be pragmatic rather than holding people to party dogma, like being understanding about farm belt representatives voting for pork-laden (so to speak) farm bills  or Florida representatives voting in favor of every proposed space program.
 
Gingrich is probably personally responsible for launching more Republican officeholder's careers than any other person in the modern era. But after those careers were launched, those people have very much done their own thing rather than follow Gingrich's own philosophy.

To expand on that last thought, it's taken me decades to figure out exactly why I think it is that the people who were drawn in to run for Republican office haven't grasped the idea of compromise. But here it is (I'm very rambling tonight but hopefully this makes sense).
 
In the 1970's, the Republican party had moved away from ideology. It was vaguely pro-business but it was difficult to point to a set of principles and pull together a group of voters to tell them "we're moving in this direction".
 
Gingrich won election to the House in '76 or '78 and immediately began agitating for the party to do something other than being content to be out in the cold: the last time the Republicans had been in control in the House had been in 1958. Gingrich had the idea if the party could pitch a set of beliefs to the voters, that it could build a governing coalition. And that his set of beliefs were the perfect ones to pitch.
 
When Reagan ran for president in 1980, Gingrich was part of the group which helped Reagan pull together an economic message (instead of the mess of statements which contributed to Reagan's 1976 presidential campaign being narrowly unsuccessful). When Reagan won the nomination, he put Gingrich in control of his national outreach to Republican congressional campaigns, which was unusual for such a junior member of the House to get such an important assignment.
 
From that point forward, Gingrich was in a continual guerilla war against the Republican leaders in the House, who mainly wanted Gingrich and his growing number of elected members to go away. 
 
Unfortunately, I think a lot of the problems started here in 1980, not with Gingrich but with Reagan's winning coalition.
 
Gingrich's idea of an ideology was small government, limited spending, sound monetary policy, strong national defense, etc.
 
But as Reagan was running for president, the Moral Majority group had started up mainly among evangelical Protestants and Reagan welcomed them in as part of his coalition. Gingrich didn't even consider himself to be a Christian at that point in time (and wouldn't convert to Catholicism for a couple of decades afterward).
 
But Gingrich welcomed the evangelicals to the party and continued the message that you have to fight for your ideals and make the best deals you can. But most of the people who were coming into the party were evangelical Protestants first and Republicans second. Their religion had started because of their perception that Catholicism had compromised the original ideology of the church. 
 
Those newcomers were also pushing for various culture wars issues and Reagan invited them into the party on that basis. They accepted the vague pro-business stance of the traditional Republican establishment. They also accepted, at least to a limited extent, what Gingrich considered to be ideology.
 
But they blended it together in their minds to be THIS IS IDEOLOGY in the same sense that they considered their religious beliefs to be ideology.
 
So when the people Gingrich recruited to run for office actually won a majority in the House in 1994, he brought along a lot of people who believed on some level that compromise was a sin, an evil: compromising your political ideology is no different than compromising your religious ideology.
 
That seemed to catch Gingrich by surprise, since he had been "preaching the gospel" of cutting the best deal possible all along and that difference between Gingrich and the Republicans (who he had helped into office) played a role in his eventual ouster.
 
Ironically, their ideology has continued to evolve with them tossing out, little by little, almost everything Gingrich had considered to be ideology. And their culture wars message has called every white supremacist out of the woodwork to be active members of the party (greatly accelerated by the Trump presidency).
 
But their belief that compromise is somehow evil remains.
 
And as I've mentioned before, when earmarks were banned in the 2000's so that individual members of Congress couldn't be enticed into compromise, things really started falling apart. 
 
< /rambling >