He didn’t make any attacks on capitalism...that’s Rush’s narrative, and evn Rush now seems to have realized that the statement was, to put it mildly, excessive. In fact, I can’t find anything anywhere where Gingrich attacks capitalism. The abusive practices and cronyism of Romney’s firm, and his lies about them, do not represent “capitalism.” Attacking them is perfectly legitimate.
As for his likes and dislikes, he’s an historian and there certainly are things about all of these people that are worthy. FDR was a good leader during WWII (which was actually what pulled us out of the Depression), and Teddy Roosevelt, while being too enthusiastic about engaging in foreign adventures, established good things too, such as our National Parks system.
I think you have to look at the actual plans that Gingrich has put forward and to the things that he accomplished if you want to get a true idea of the direction in which he would go. He actually does have a verifiable record of conservative policies and achievement.
FDR through the New (raw) Deal injected most of the government regulatory nonsense we have now. He wanted a 100% income tax AND his policies intentionally prolonged the depression so that the public would be more willing to give themselves to government. FDR made it illegal to own gold and essentially handed eastern Europe to the Communists. TR presided over the beginnings of the slide toward Socialism in this country. The National Parks were one of the biggest transfers of private land to government in history, AND he began the process to get the 16th amendment and thereby the income tax that has made us all slaves to the IRS. The cause of individual freedom would have been greatly advanced had both of the Roosevelts had died in childhood.
You say yourself that Newt is a historian so he has to know these things and yet these are his favorite Presidents. I notice that you are not trying to defend Newt's view of Wilson but then Wilson is indefensible in any circumstance. (read up on the APL sometime