Giuliani Top Choice Among Both Moderate and Conservative Republicans (New Gallup Poll)

PRINCETON, NJ -- With the 2008 Republican presidential field beginning to come into shape, there are still questions and apparent opportunities for a favorite "conservative" candidate to emerge. The three leading announced contenders -- Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney -- have taken stances in the past that are out of step, if not unpopular, with conservative voters, although all have taken recent steps to try to reassure conservatives. The key question is whether conservatives will be able to look past any differences they may have with these candidates and support one of them for the nomination -- or hope that a more solidly conservative candidate emerges from the back of the pack or enters the race.

An analysis of Republicans' primary nomination preferences in recent Gallup Polls show that while conservative Republicans are less likely to support Rudy Giuliani than liberal or moderate Republicans, the former New York City mayor is the clear leader among both groups. John McCain, who is in second among both groups, also fares slightly better among moderates than conservatives. Though well behind the two leaders, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are much more likely to be supported by conservatives than moderates and liberals. At the same time, conservative and moderate Republicans' basic favorable ratings of Giuliani are highly positive and similar between the two groups, as are their ratings of McCain. Romney's favorable ratings are better among conservatives than moderate and liberal Republicans.

Gallup combined data from its last two Republican nomination trial heats, conducted Feb. 9-11, 2007, and Mar. 2-4, 2007, to get a better sense of how the candidates fare among ideological groups. Both polls showed Giuliani leading among all Republicans over McCain by a healthy margin, with Gingrich third.

Since relatively few Republicans identify as liberals, the responses of liberals and moderates are combined into one group. Republicans are about twice as likely to identify as conservative when asked about their ideological leanings than as either moderate or liberal.

The analysis shows that Giuliani is the top choice among both conservative Republicans and liberal and moderate Republicans, though he has greater support among the latter group. McCain finishes second among both groups, and also polling slightly better among moderates and liberal Republicans.


Preference for 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination, Results by Ideology Aggregated Data From Feb. 9-11, 2007, and March 2-4, 2007, Surveys
Moderate/ Liberal Republicans	%	Conservative Republicans	%
Rudy Giuliani	48	Rudy Giuliani	38
John McCain	26	John McCain	20
Mitt Romney	3	Newt Gingrich	14
George Pataki	2	Mitt Romney	8
Sam Brownback	2	Tommy Thompson	2
Newt Gingrich	2
Tommy Thompson	2

All others	3	All others	9

No preference	11	No preference	9

Giuliani and McCain are the only candidates with any significant support among moderate and liberal Republicans, with everyone else at 3% or less. On the other hand, Gingrich (14%) and Romney (8%) get higher support among conservative Republicans than liberal or moderate Republicans, but both trail the leading candidates by substantial margins among conservatives.

Gingrich has yet to make his presidential intentions known, saying he will decide whether to formally enter the race later this year. His showing among conservative Republicans indicates he could be a factor in the race, particularly since Republican primary and caucus voters are mostly conservative in their ideological orientation.

If Gingrich does not enter the race, Romney and Giuliani may benefit more than the other Republican candidates among conservatives. When the data are re-calculated by substituting Gingrich supporters' second choice for the nomination in place of their Gingrich vote, Giuliani's support among conservative Republicans increases to 43% (from 38%) and Romney pushes into the double digits at 11%. McCain's support is generally unchanged (21% compared to 20%) with Gingrich in the race. No other candidate gains more than a point in support among conservatives.


Preference for 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination, Results by Ideology (Without Gingrich) Aggregated Data From Feb. 9-11, 2007, and March 2-4, 2007, Surveys
Moderate/ Liberal Republicans	%	Conservative Republicans	%
Rudy Giuliani	49%	Rudy Giuliani	43%
John McCain	27%	John McCain	21%
Mitt Romney	3%	Mitt Romney	11%
George Pataki	3%	Sam Brownback	2%
Sam Brownback	2%	Duncan Hunter	2%
Tommy Thompson	2%	Tommy Thompson	2%
		Tom Tancredo	2%

All others	4%	All others	7%

No preference	11%	No preference	10%

In addition to measuring the candidates' current support for the nomination, Gallup has also asked Republicans for their overall opinions (favorable or unfavorable) of the leading contenders in the last two months. In general, Giuliani (80%) is viewed more favorably than McCain (68%) by Republicans regardless of their ideology. Eighty percent of both conservative and moderate Republicans have a favorable opinion of Giuliani. McCain's favorable ratings are 66% among moderate and liberal Republicans and 69% among conservative Republicans.

While Republicans' opinions of both Giuliani and McCain are similar by ideology, there is more variation in views of Romney, though the difference is largely due to conservatives being more familiar with him than moderates and liberals. Among conservative Republicans, 38% view Romney favorably, 13% unfavorably, and 49% do not know him well enough to give a rating. Among moderate and liberal Republicans, 23% have a favorable view, 11% an unfavorable one, and 66% cannot rate him.


Favorable Ratings for 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination, Results by Ideology Aggregated Data From Feb. 9-11, 2007, and March 2-4, 2007, Surveys
	Favorable	Un- favorable	No opinion
	%	%	%
*Rudy Giuliani*
All Republicans	80	11	10
Moderate/Liberal	80	7	13
Conservative	80	13	8

*John McCain*
All Republicans	68	19	13
Moderate/Liberal	66	17	17
Conservative	69	21	10

*Mitt Romney*
All Republicans	32	12	56
Moderate/Liberal	23	11	66
Conservative	38	13	49

Gingrich's favorable ratings were asked in just one poll, the March 2-4, 2007, poll. Fifty-four percent of Republicans viewed him favorably and 30% unfavorably in that poll, with 16% not having an opinion. Thus, Republicans give Gingrich the highest negative rating among the leading candidates. The data suggest that he is viewed much more favorably by conservative Republicans than by moderate and liberal Republicans so he may not be quite as vulnerable in the primaries as the overall data suggest. Gingrich would have a much harder time in the general election, though, as he is the only leading contender of either party who has a net negative favorable rating (29% favorable and 49% unfavorable) among all Americans.

The favorable ratings show that conservative Republicans are apparently quite comfortable with both Giuliani and McCain -- both are given positive reviews by more than two-thirds of conservative Republicans. That would indicate that there may not be a substantial push to draft a conservative candidate among the Republican rank and file. However, that is not to say that if one emerges in the next several months that the candidate could not be competitive with the current group of frontrunners.

These results are based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national sample of 849 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, aged 18 and older, conducted Feb. 9-11, 2007, and Mar. 2-4, 2007. For results based on this sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of error attributable to sampling and other random effects is ±4 percentage points.

Results based on the sample of 552 conservative Republicans have a maximum margin of sampling error of ±5 percentage points.

Results based on the sample of 289 moderate or liberal Republicans have a maximum margin of sampling error of ±6 percentage points.In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

You post sounds scripted.

Try explaining this.

---------------------------------------------------

May 3, 1992

Memorandum for: Vice Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Prisoners of War and Missing in Action

From: John F. McCreary

Subject: Possible Violations of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2071, by the Select Committee and Possible Ethical Misconduct by Staff Attorneys.

1. Continuing analysis of relevant laws and further review of the events between 8 April and 16 April 1992 connected with the destruction of the Investigators' Intelligence Briefing Text strongly indicate that the order to destroy all copies of that briefing text on 9 April and the actual destruction of copies of the briefing texts plus the purging of computer files might constitute violations of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2071, which imposes criminal penalties for unlawful document destruction. Even absent a finding of criminal misconduct, statements, actions, and failures to act by the senior Staff attorneys following the 9 April briefing might constitute serious breaches of ethical standards of conduct for attorneys, in addition to violations of Senate and Select Committee rules. The potential consequences of these possible misdeeds are such that they should be brought to the attention of all members of the Select Committee, plus all Designees and Staff members who were present at the 9 April briefing.

2. The relevant section of Title 18, U.S.C., states in pertinent part: Section 2071. Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 795)

3. The facts as the undersigned and others present at the briefing recall them are presented in the attached Memorandum for the Record. A summary of those facts - and others that have been established since that Memorandum was written - follows.

a. On 8 April 1992, the Investigators' Intelligence Briefing Text was presented to Senior Staff members and Designees for whom copies were available prior to beginning the briefing. Objections to the text by the Designees prompted the Staff Director to order all persons present to leave their copies of the briefing text in Room SRB078. Subsequent events indicated that two copies had been removed without authorization.

b. On 9 April 1992, at the beginning of the meeting of the Select Committee and prior to the scheduled investigators' briefing, Senator McCain produced a copy of the intelligence briefing text, with whose contents he strongly disagreed. He charged that the briefing text had already been leaked to a POW/MIA activist, but was reassured by the Chairman that such was not the case. He replied that he was certain it would be leaked. Whereupon, the Chairman assured Senator McCain that there would be no leaks because all copies would be gathered and destroyed, and he gave orders to that effect. No senior staff member or attorney present cautioned against a possible violation of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2071, or of Senate or Select Committee Rules.

c. Following the briefing on 9 April, the Staff Director, Ms. Frances Zwenig, restated to the intelligence investigators the order to destroy the intelligence briefing text and took measures to ensure execution of the destruction order. (See paragraph 3 of the attachment.) During one telephone conversation with the undersigned, she stated that she was "acting under orders."

d. The undersigned also was instructed to delete all computer files, which Mr. Barry Valentine witnessed on 9 April.

e. In a meeting on 15 April 1992, the Staff's Chief Counsel, J. William Codinha, was advised by intelligence investigators of their concerns about the possibility that they had committed a crime by participating in the destruction of the briefing text. Mr. Codinha minimized the significance of the documents and of their destruction. He admonished the investigators for "making a mountain out of a molehill."

f. When investigators repeated their concern that the order to destroy the documents might lead to criminal charges, Mr. Codinha replied "Who's the injured party." He was told, "The 2,494 families of the unaccounted for US Servicemen, among others." Mr. Codinha then said, "Who's gonna tell them. It's classified." At that point the meeting erupted. The undersigned stated that the measure of merit was the law and what's right, not avoidance of getting caught. To which Mr. Codinha made no reply. At no time during the meeting did Mr. Codinha give any indication that any copies of the intelligence briefing text existed.

g. Investigators, thereupon, repeatedly requested actions by the Committee to clear them of any wrongdoing, such as provision of legal counsel. Mr. Codinha admitted that he was not familiar with the law and promised to look into it. He invited a memorandum from the investigators stating what they wanted. Given Mr. Codinha's statements and reactions to the possibility of criminal liability, the investigators concluded they must request appointment of an independent counsel. A memorandum making such a request and signed by all six intelligence investigators was delivered to Mr. Codinha on 16 April.

h. At 2130 on 16 April, the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee, convened a meeting with the intelligence investigators, who told him personally of their concern that they might have committed a crime by participating in the destruction of the briefing texts at the order of the Staff Director. Senator Kerry stated that he gave the order to destroy the documents, not the Staff Director, and that none of the Senators present at the meeting had objected. He also stated that the issue of document destruction was "moot" because the original briefing text had been deposited with the Office of Senate Security "all along." Both the Staff Director and the Chief Counsel supported this assertion by the Chairman.

i. Senator Kerry's remarks prompted follow-up investigations (See paragraphs 4 through 9 of the attachment) and inquiries that established that a copy of the text was not deposited in the Office of Senate Security until the afternoon of 16 April. The Staff Director has admitted that on the afternoon of 16 April, after receiving a copy of a memorandum from Senator Bob Smith to Senator Kerry in which Senator Smith outlined his concerns about the destruction of documents, she obtained a copy of the intelligence briefing text from the office of Senator McCain and took it to the Office of Senate Security. Office of Senate Security personnel confirmed that the Staff Director gave them an envelope, marked "Eyes Only," to be placed in her personal file. The Staff Director has admitted that the envelope contained the copy of the intelligence briefing text that she obtained from the office of Senator McCain.

3. The facts of the destruction of the intelligence briefing text would seem to fall inside the prescriptions of the Statute, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2071, so as to justify their referral for investigation to a competent law enforcement authority. The applicability of that Statute was debated in United States v. Poindexter, D.D.C. 1989, 725 F. Supp. 13, in connection with the Iran Contra investigation. The District Court ruled, inter alia, that the National Security Council is a public office within the meaning of the Statute and, thus, that its records and documents fell within the protection of the Statute. In light of that ruling, the Statute would seem to apply to this Senate Select Committee and its Staff. The continued existence of a "bootleg" copy of the intelligence briefing text - i.e., a copy that is not one of those made by the investigators for the purpose of briefing the Select Committee - would seem to be irrelevant to the issues of intent to destroy and willfulness; as well as to the issue of responsibility for the order to destroy all copies of the briefing text, for the attempt to carry out that order, and for the destruction that actually was accomplished in execution of that order.

4. As for the issue of misconduct by Staff attorneys, all member of the Bar swear to uphold the law. That oath may be violated by acts of omission and commission. Even without a violation of the Federal criminal statute, the actions and failures to act by senior Staff attorneys in the sequence of events connected with the destruction of the briefing text might constitute violations

of ethical standards for members of the Bar and of both Senate and Select Committee rules. The statements, actions and failures to act during and after the meeting on 15 April, when the investigators gave notice of their concern about possible criminal liability for document destruction, would seem to reflect disregard for the law and for the rules of the United States Senate.

John F. McCreary

"Not to be nit-picky, but John Wayne, one of my favorite actors and Americans, was never in the military.

I understand what you are trying to say, but you picked the wrong man for comparison. Fred Thompson is much more Waynelike than Duncan Hunter. I can assure you that if I didn't know any of these men at all and walked into a room full of people that included these gentlemen, John Wayne & Fred Thompson would garner my attention, Duncan wouldn't.

The slovenly look that someone mentioned earlier fits Hunter. I mentioned to my son just a few days ago that the guy always looks like he just stepped off of a long flight.

People should consider that it's not a matter of voting for someone with talking points to their liking. The trick is getting your talking points into the Republican National Platform, then putting forth a Republican that is electable."

My point is that there was criticism of the way Duncan Hunter comes across. I answered that he comes across in a John Wayne way manly way, but unlike John Wayne-being in reality-he actually has military experience.

I have to laugh when you say Fred Thompson is more comparable to John Wayne. Hell no! Duncan Hunter is a bear of a man who clearly comes across as the Army Airborne Ranger he is! And when it is compared an 'actor' to someone who has actually served and been an influential member of Congress on defense issues as Chairman and now ranking member, with a son who has done duty in Iraq, THE ACTOR WILL NOT MATTER. People are FAR more impressed with that. Hunter is presidential with the ability to communicate and cut through Demonrat propaganda. Not many Republicans venture to take on the PC cr*p like Hunter does. He has continued to be at the forefront. The GOP needs a leader like Hunter. NO MORE new tone.

Point is, Hunter retains the conservative principles that is(or was) the bedrock of the GOP and is the best possible candidate. To hell with the argument of electability because there is no sure thing and it matters how well the candidate campaigns. Hunter is the best possible choice. And he will make the best President. America needs Duncan Hunter.

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.

March 20, 2007

Giuliani Top Choice Among Both Moderate, Conservative Republicans

Gingrich, Romney do better among conservatives than moderates

by Jeffrey M. Jones