Somebody earlier today suggested I tend to focus more on what candidates are saying they will do, than on what they were like in the past. This might be true.
I certainly don’t dismiss the past, but I would say that if one candidate was always good before, and now says they will do something bad, I’ll probably believe them. If a candidate was bad before, but says they see the light, I might also believe them. But I can’t imagine specifically deciding that a candidate who says they oppose my position on an issue is actually lying to me about it.
I also tend to focus more on what happened in this century. People change. If they didn’t, we wouldn’t dismiss Gingrich’s infidelity, which happened at the same time he was getting those 100% conservative rankings. If we are supposed to accept that he’s a different person now, it seems inconsistant to argue that he’s conservative now because he was conservative then.
I don’t think you have succeeded in making a concise, declarative statement. If I’m wrong, please oblige me.
Regarding what you did say—your premise is flawed. It seems you think that the only way to believe him now is if he were perfect then.
Nobody is perfect, ever. So Gingrich was a conservative bulldog then, but unfaithful to his wife. It doesn’t mean he didn’t truly believe in conservatism then, or now.
I say this: just watch his speeches from the past few weeks, and take it all in. Integrate the facts with your gut feeling.