I heavily documented the fact that The Newt supported the “penalty” in two of his recent books [quoting chapter/verse], due to concerns regarding the free-rider.

But let’s review the waterfront…as they say…dealing seriatim with these two players.

*

Realistically, and I’m not into rationalization [because it ALWAYS boomerangs], what you have is an issue of tone/context. I do not like elitism, and Mitt is neon-lit in this regard; why oh why hasn’t he “gotten the hint” and retreated on this issue? From the Michigan speech [reinforcing the Individual Mandate] through the last debates [as Santorum has increasingly called him out on this Achilles' Heel], he has … well … acted as a “heel”!

I had watched his Ann Arbor speech “live” [hopeful], but had found the slide-show to be a disappointing shroud over the core fault-lines therein, and this was long before I had started vigorously applying Article I Section 8. In fact, when he endorsed Toomey @ the Philly Press Conference [@ the Loew's, formerly the famous art-deco PSFS Building across from the Convention Center @ 11th & Market Sts.], I asked him about this [and Toomey about protectionism in large industry, such as ship-building].

This is when he cited federalism and proceeded to spin-the-tale [which John Gibson dashed, when I called him on his XM-radio show, a few months later] that he had been threatened with a legislature that would impose a single-payor system [and, thus, had reluctantly signed the bill]. Since then, his enthusiasm for it has been obvious and consistent and unqualified…to my increasing dismay.

This is why the photo of myself between the two of them [his reply to when I asked "is this the 2012 ticket" was "I didn't know you were running?] was the cover of my smart-’phone until it was swapped a few months ago. He was the patrician whom I’d championed in ’08, but I remained increasingly unsettled.

This is why I am so put-off, particularly with his slash-burn approach to campaigning against otherwise-decent people. And the central import of his Big Government action [remember, I'm a physician who has been deeply involved in Organized Medicine politics for a quarter-century] was ultimately the source of angst, which exploded after I developed fealty for Perry.

*

Let’s compare this [in a transitional sense] with The Newt, who also has his “jewelry”-issue regarding Tiffany’s. When Mitt blurted-out the “$10K Bet” and de-emphasized the “poor” [after which he over-compensated by endorsing an indexed minimum-wage], I was then numbed to his snobbishness before he “joked” about NASCAR.

This compares/contrasts with The Newt, who TRIES to relate with the triumvirate cited on the “Horserace” page: Evangelicals, Constitutional-Conservatives, TEA Party [Taxed Enough Already] activists. The “Main St.” vs. “Wall St.”/”K St.” model works, here, [ignoring Santorum] when The Newt is compared/contrasted with Mitt/BHO. Granted, The Newt has been a D.C. Insider, but he certainly has jettisoned all assumptions regarding whether he would allow himself to be bound in this fashion by anyone who would espouse what he did not believe to be correct.

For example, he said [on a conference-call, on the first Friday in December @ 11:40 a.m.] he supported my idea [promulgated for years] to impose a naval blockade/quarantine on Iran ASAP [because he unabashedly views this as c/w his desire to achieve regime-change]. {During this hourlong event, to which at least one member of the press was listening, he also endorsed Bibi’s 1000:1 prisoner swap “because I’d want the CIA to track down the ~35 terrorists with American blood on their hands.”} This goes further than what Sheldon Adelson would presumably have requested.

*

We now, therefore, must turn to how The Newt has updated his prior support for the Individual Mandate.

1. An insider has provided the tick-tock regarding how the “conservative” view of the Individual Mandate was born…and died…two decades ago.

[http://townhall.com/columnists/peterferrara/2011/12/23/heritage_and_the_individual_mandate]

2. Ferrara updated his viewpoint by endorsing The Newt’s update, the key-phrase of which ["no individual mandate or employer mandate of any kind"] appears to jettison governmental pressure to purchase health insurance.

[http://townhall.com/columnists/peterferrara/2011/10/11/newt%E2%80%99s_new_contract/page/full/]

3. Sam Stein [predictably] writes: “Newt Gingrich Was More Supportive Of Individual Mandates Than Mitt Romney” by quoting the same books I’d unearthed independently.

“A simple newspaper archive search bears this out. At an Alegent Health event in Omaha in 2008, Gingrich said it was ‘fundamentally immoral’ for a person to go without coverage, show up at an emergency room and demand free care….

“Spokesmen for Gingrich did not return an email request for comment on his support for federally-applied, individual mandates.

“Ed Haislmaier, a health care policy expert at the Heritage Foundation (the conservative think tank that first championed the mandate), said he did not have enough information to comment on Gingrich’s past approach to health care reform. Haislmaier did, however, note that there is a distinction between taxing individuals for not buying insurance and requiring them to post a bond, as Gingrich proposed. While the former is a penalty for not getting coverage, ‘what [the latter] is saying is you have to pay your bills if you get care,’ he said.

“A bond, as Haislmaier noted, is exactly what Romney initially proposed while he was governor of Massachusetts. Romney ended up signing off on a more traditional mandate only after it was passed by the state legislature….”

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/12/newt-gingrich-individual-mandate-romney_n_861017.html]

4. The Newt provided an update regarding his stances on the Individual Mandate on “Meet the Press.” {Listen…after the ad…@ 1:20.” “We ought to have a requirement that you either have insurance, post a bond, or in some way indicate you will be held accountable…a variation on the Individual Mandate.”

[http://townhall.com/video/newt-gingrich-supports-individual-mandate]

*

I vigorously argued that The Newt had to come clean when inserting the caveat “or in some way indicate you will be held accountable.” In-video and on-paper, he remains problematic, albeit not stridently pushing this issue…as has Mitt.

Perhaps The Huckster will ask The Newt to “clarify” his posture during tonight’s joint-appearance [albeit non-debate] on FNC….