Response to Anti-War Vote Is Mild, Democrats Feel : Politics: Some face issue head-on without getting unfavorable reaction. GOP plans to use it in campaign.

ELIZABETH CITY, N.C. —  The first question to Sen. Terry Sanford (D-N.C.) at a citizens’ meeting came like a shot: “Why did you vote against the war in the Gulf?”

Sanford’s visit to this quiet eastern Carolina town during Congress’ Easter recess gave ordinary voters their first chance to challenge him directly on the issue since the dramatic American triumph over Iraq.

The sharp question took on added meaning because Republican leaders have made it clear that they will seek to capitalize at the polls in November, 1992, on the fact that a majority of Democrats voted against authorizing force to liberate Kuwait.

Although enough Democrats joined with GOP lawmakers to give congressional approval for the war, 179 Democrats in the House and 46 in the Senate voted the other way, including all the Democratic leaders in both chambers.

Charles Cook, who publishes a political insiders’ newsletter widely circulated in Washington, wrote recently that there is a “very real possibility that Democratic self-inflicted wounds over the Persian Gulf could individually or collectively be troublesome well into the decade.”

For instance, although incumbents normally have an enormous advantage, Cook now rates Sanford’s chances for reelection a tossup, even though no Republican challenger has yet announced.

“We do not believe that this (war) issue, on a national level, will have nearly the shelf life that conventional wisdom has come to believe,” Cook wrote. “But, if it has a shelf life anywhere, it will be in North Carolina.”

Sanford, who won his Senate race in 1986 with only a 52% majority, clearly could be vulnerable in a state that has more than its share of large military bases. But he showed recently that he is prepared to confront his critics head-on, as he did in Elizabeth City.

“Before we send young men and women off to war, we ought to ask the hard questions,” he began. “Do we have to kill 100,000 citizens of another country to get the job done? Do we have to level Kuwait in order to save it? The President had the trump card--but I couldn’t worry about the political consequences.”

Although, before leaving Washington, he had been apprehensive about the consequences of his war vote, the favorable response he got from North Carolina voters persuaded him that it was a non-issue in his campaign for reelection, he said.

If so, it will be bad news for Republicans, because Sanford’s seat was at the top of their list as a major GOP target next year, when memories of the Gulf War should still be fresh. If they cannot beat Sanford on the war issue, their prospects in other races are more likely to be dim.

Sanford received a big round of applause from his audience when he explained his decision to support extending the embargo against Iraq rather than resorting to force, and he said he felt reassured that his vote against war would not be politically fatal.

“They’re trying to whomp it up into an issue,” the senator said afterward of the Republicans. “But it just won’t whomp.”

Some political analysts have cautioned that it is too early to tell what the electoral fallout may be from Congress’ historic vote on using force in the Persian Gulf. But most Democrats were taking comfort this week from the voters’ reaction during the lawmakers’ spring break.

In South Carolina, where Democratic Sen. Ernest F. Hollings is considered to be in political trouble in part because of his vote against using force against Iraq, there was a surprising silence on the issue during his visit to a Hilton Head, S.C., Rotary Club luncheon.

Not one of the 200 persons at the luncheon--mostly Republicans--asked a question about the war vote, observers said.

Yet, there is little doubt about the attitude of voters in the state. As one South Carolina editor put it: “Nobody is predisposed to any other opinion but that the war was right and should have been voted for.”

In New York, Democratic Reps. James H. Scheuer and Nita M. Lowey were publicly chided in their largely Jewish districts for not supporting the President on the war issue. But they were able to mute the critics by explaining the reservations they had held at the time.

“People have been understanding because they shared those reservations,” an aide to Scheuer said. “Before the vote, our mail was running 20 to 1 against going to war.”

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who also voted against the war resolution, said his talks with voters made him feel that the issue would not be a useful weapon for Republicans to employ against Democrats across the board.

“For most of us who voted against (authorizing force), the decision reflected a different factual judgment, not a difference in moral perspectives,” Frank said.

“If the vote against the war had been part of a pattern in which Democrats did not want to use force at all or were reluctant to oppose Saddam Hussein, then we’d have a problem,” he added. “But, for most of us, that simply was not the case.”

But experienced candidates such as North Carolina’s Sanford are taking steps to reinforce their political armor against potential Republican attacks on the war issue.

His audiences are always reminded that Sanford, now 73, served four years as an Army paratrooper during World War II, winning the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart and the Combat Infantryman’s Badge for participating in the invasion of France and the bloody Battle of the Bulge.

His campaign symbol--embodied in a tiny lapel pin--is a parachute that identifies him as a member of the 82nd Airborne Division, a unit that is based at Ft. Bragg, N.C., and was deployed to fight in the Persian Gulf conflict.

Once the war began, Sanford toured the major Army, Air Force and Marine bases in his state, visiting with families of troops sent to Saudi Arabia.

“If there was going to be any hissing and booing, I think we’d pick it up,” he said. In his folksy way, the former North Carolina governor and Duke University president invites his listeners to air any gripes they may have.

“If you want to fuss at me, go right ahead, because that helps, too,” he told one audience.

However, when a question about his war vote was raised at an Asheville, N.C., meeting, Sanford’s answer was so persuasive that at least half of the audience responded with a standing ovation.

Later, in Greenville, N.C., the senator became heated and raised his voice in replying to a similar question, saying: “Do you think I’m going around North Carolina apologizing for making democracy work? I’m very confident with that vote, and I’m very confident that it’s not going to hurt the Democrats . . . . In 1992, people are not going to vote for somebody on the basis of whether they voted for a war that’s long over.”

A North Carolina business executive who clearly was not a Sanford supporter generally agreed. The vote against war hurt Sanford, he said, “but time may heal it.”

Sanford and fellow Democrats hope to change the subject from the Gulf War to domestic concerns, where they feel the President is vulnerable to charges that he cares little about a home-front agenda.

At one point in his Greenville appearance, Sanford challenged Bush to respond to pressing domestic issues, such as the recession and housing, as effectively as he dealt with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

“He’s not going to be safe at all (in 1992) if he doesn’t start taking care of the problems of this country,” the senator said to strong applause.

Charles Horne, Sanford’s campaign manager in Pitt County, N.C., said it was hard to forecast what issues would be on voters’ minds 18 months from now.

“The mood here is quiet, and it won’t be cranking up until the spring of ‘92,” Horne said.

Staff writer Michael Ross contributed to this story.

FIRING BACK

Republicans has hoped that the huge outpouring of support for the war in the Gulf could be used at the polls to help defeat some of the 225 Democrats who voted against the war. Some of those Democrats are clearly avoiding the topis as much as possible. At least a few, however, have begun to strike back.

Sen. Terry Sanford (D.--N.C.): “Before we send young men and women off to war, we ought to ask the hard questions. Do we have to kill 100,000 citizens of another country to get the job done? Do we have to level Kuwait in order to save it? The President has the trump card, but I couldn’t worry about the political consequences.”

Rep. Barney Frank (D--Mass): “If the vote against the war had been part of a pattern in which Democrats did not want to use force at all or were reluctant to oppose Saddam Hussein, then we’d have a problem. . . But for most of us that simply was not the case.”