Skip to comments.Gingrich praised FDR, New Deal in ’95, ’06 books
Posted on 12/06/2011 12:16:40 AM PST by Mozilla
In two books, the man who calls President Barack Obama a food-stamp president praised the man whose administration created the first food stamp program.
Snubbing 16 other presidents including Ronald Reagan, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called Franklin D. Roosevelt probably the greatest president of the twentieth century in his 1995 book To Renew America.
In a passage of the book in which Gingrich laid out examples of historical figures asking for Gods help for the nation, he praised Roosevelt for openly appeal[ing] to the nations sense of faith and religion in summing the national will to the task of defeating Nazi Germany.
More recently, in his 2006 book Rediscovering God in America, Gingrich lauded FDRs national leadership and spiritual guidance during World War II.
Many consider Franklin Roosevelt to be the father of modern liberalism, so it may surprise you that he was a man of deep religious conviction who unapologetically linked the preservation of our nation during World War II with the preservation of religion, the former House Speaker wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
I can’t bring myself to support this fool. The GOP nominees are either RINOS, don’t have the name recognition or fire to attract potential voters or are just plain embarrassing.
That seems to be the case. We are screwed.
If we tear down Gingrich, who is left?
It’s great that our presidents used to lead America in prayer, but he could’ve stopped there. No need to praise the New Deal.
Reagan was a fan of FDR.
The real Conservatives.
I cant bring myself to support this fool....
So Obama is better? I’ll take a RINO president any day over Obama and his band of fools.
We need a conservative Congress to roll back all the insane spending which is far more important. Any RINO president will fall in line.
The discussion about FDR was in Chapter 3, Reasserting and Renewing American Civilization. Newt was writing about the spiritual dimension that made America unique among nations:
“The fastest way to learn about America is by immersion in our history as a people and our emergence as a nation. From the Jamestown Colony and the Pilgrims to the very founding of the nation, the centrality of God and religion is unmistakable. All of our rights come from our Creator. Even today this is a very radical idea. In nearly all countries, power belongs to the state and is occasionally loaned to individuals. In America, power comes from God to the individual and is loaned to the state. It does not belong to the state or a king.”
Newt then writes about the Constitutional Convention and how it was in danger of failing. Newt gives the speech that Ben Franklin gave to pull the Convention back on track. Here is a brief excerpt:
“. . . that we have not hitherto thought of humbly applying to the Father of Lights to illuminate our understanding?” . . . “And have we not forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convinced I am of this truth—that God governs the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?”
Then Newt writes about the faith of Abraham Lincoln and gives his second inaugural address which talks about slavery as an offense and how God caused the war “as woe due to those by whom the offense came.”
Finally, Newt writes about the “struggle of equal magnitude with Nazi Germany.” Newt gives Roosevelt’s radio address to the nation that was waiting for the results of the battle on Omaha Beach. Again, Newt writes about the faith of FDR; a faith that “Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln would have understood and approved.”
It is this same faith in God that we should reach to in our struggle to restore America today. God is our “powerful friend,” in case we have forgotten. Newt’s third chapter in “To Renew America,” is an important one.
This is an example odf the difference between a “hit” and a “gotcha” in political research. If the author was working in an ops research shop he would be told to go back and find something voters care about. Yes it SOUNDS like an OOOOOOH! but when the dust settles I’ve seen much worse stuff pulled from a book written by a target that fell flat. This will as well.
The author of the blog cannot quote any actual "praise" for the New Deal. Newt notes that the New Deal failed to end the Depression, but did lift morale. Here in solidly Republican East Tennessee, when I was a child, one could go in some homes and see a picture of FRD on the wall, right next to the picture of Jesus.
It was only this past year that I became aware that FDR prayed to conclude his address on D-Day.
I guess deceptive and lurid headlines are one way to get blog hits, though.
Actually, the comments in the thread are exposing the spin (lie) of the headline.
Adulation of FDR is a prerequisite at some level for high office in DC.....
Welcome to the United Soviet States of America..where the Pravda State Media vet the candidates to the pleasure and needs of the RinoCrat UniParty.
This election will be a non-election...featuring the state approved candidates-whose only distinction is whether they are black or white.
I can not, will not, support Newt. I’ve gone back to Perry in hopes he can pull it out.
Key word there, "Was"
Reagan later wrote: "Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal. It was Mussolini's success in Italy, with his government-directed economy, that led the early New Dealers to say 'But Mussolini keeps the trains running on time."
My grandmother was a young adult in 1929 and died thinking FDR was a hero who helped people in the great depression.
Newts comments on FDR and WWII wouldnt be so bad if he had only pointed out all the bad things Roosevelt did too.
Newt is definitely a progressive and his record the last 15 years is much more relevent than what he voted for in the 1990s when a small conservative GA house district voters were holding his feet to the fire. He may be less liberal than Romney but that’s not saying much.
Point taken, but Reagan is criticizing the New Deal here more than FDR, and explaining how it was justified. A few years back some politicians wanted to replace FDR on the dime with Reagan. Nancy put an end to it by saying it’s not what Ronnie would have wanted to replace FDR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.