NEWS ANALYSIS : Both Parties Have Big Stake in Vote : Politics: Republicans face much greater risks than Democrats if the congressional resolution leads to a long, costly war.

Although partisan politics was starkly absent from Congress’ momentous votes on war and peace Saturday, the political consequences could be enormous, with President Bush and his Republican allies facing much greater risks than Democrats, analysts and lawmakers said.

Clearly, Bush will get a huge boost toward reelection in 1992 if, in the wake of congressional passage of the resolution authorizing him to attack Iraq, the Persian Gulf crisis is resolved peacefully or--at the worst--in a brief war with few American casualties.

But if the war is long and costly, with many U.S. casualties, the political fallout could be disastrous for Bush and congressional Republicans, with Democrats likely to mount strong criticism during the campaign. The anti-war movement also could become a potent force.

“If a lot of people are killed, the peace movement will be much, much stronger,” said Roy Greenaway, top aide to Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.). “On the other hand, the people who begrudgingly supported Bush on the war resolution will say the President screwed up.”

Saturday’s debate and floor action was conducted on an unusually high plane, abjuring the partisan gibes and slashes that usually accompany fights on major issues.

“There was less politics on this than on anything since I have been in Congress,” said Rep. Philip R. Sharp (D-Ind.).

In the House, Rep. Stephen J. Solarz (D-N.Y.) joined with Minority Leader Robert H. Michel (R-Ill.) as primary co-sponsors of the war authorization legislation. Other key Democratic sponsors included the chairmen of the House Armed Services, Foreign Affairs and Intelligence committees. In the Senate, 10 Democrats supported the Bush-backed resolution, joining a near-solid group of Republicans.

Some Democrats privately expressed concern that opposition to a war resolution would weaken their party if the resolution should be followed by a quick, satisfactory ending to the gulf crisis.

Rep. John M. Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, who backed Bush, said Democratic sponsorship of a sanctions bill “reinforced the weak image on international policy that has gotten us defeated in national elections.”

The Democrat most politically vulnerable to a favorable outcome in the gulf is Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.). The usually hawkish chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee led Democratic doves against war authorization and in favor of continued sanctions.

Some believe this could set back Nunn’s exploration of a run for the White House. “He is advertised as the Democrats’ foreign policy and defense expert,” a top GOP aide said. “If he turns out to be wrong on the gulf, then he has little claim to the Democratic nomination.

But most analysts and lawmakers expressed a more sanguine view of the Democrats’ political situation.

Republican consultant Carol Whitney said that “the Democrats are not risking a hell of a lot here. Bush still makes the decision on going to war. And if the Democrats can’t control what Bush does, then I don’t think it hits them.”

“Politically, the Democrats are on the safer side of the issue because if things go bad, they can say we told you so,” said Sen. John H. Chafee (R-R.I.). “If things go right, they can say things would have gone even more right if we had waited longer on economic sanctions.”

Democratic political consultant David Mallino agreed. “If there is a war, nobody is going to really care that many Democrats voted for sanctions, and I don’t see any of them getting punished,” Mallino said.

“The bigger danger is to Republicans,” he said, “who (then) could be accused of rushing into war when a lot of people said wait.”

Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, a prominent liberal Democrat, also contended that Democrats would be subject to little blame if war breaks out.

“The end of the Cold War has changed all that,” Frank said. In the past, Democrats who opposed large defense expenditures were accused of being soft on communism, he said. But with the Soviet Union no longer perceived as a major military threat, the dynamics are different for those opposing Bush’s gulf policy.

The real issue if there is a war, Frank said, is whether the United States should bear the largest burden among the nations arrayed against Iraq. “The issue becomes who’s going to pay for it, who’s going to die?”

HOW CALIFORNIA REPRESENTATIVES VOTED

WASHINGTON--Here is how members of the California delegation in the House voted on a resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force to drive Iraq out of Kuwait:

Democrats for--Anderson, Berman, Condit, Lehman, Levine.

Republicans for--Campbell, Cox, Cunningham, Dannemeyer, Doolittle, Dornan, Dreier, Gallegly, Herger, Hunter, Lagomarsino, Lewis, Lowery, McCandless, Moorhead, Packard, Rohrabacher, Thomas.

Democrats against--Beilenson, Boxer, Brown, Dellums, Dixon, Dooley, Edwards, Fazio, Lantos, Martinez, Matsui, Miller, Mineta, Panetta, Pelosi, Roybal, Stark, Torres, Waters, Waxman.

Republicans against--Riggs.

Democrats not voting--Dymally.

Republicans not voting--none.

SENATE VOTE ON USE OF FORCE

WASHINGTON--Here is how members of the Senate voted to empower President Bush to “use United States armed forces” to expel Iraq from Kuwait.

Democrats for--Breaux (La.), Bryan (Nev.), Gore (Tenn.), Graham (Fla.), Heflin (Ala.), Johnston (La.), Lieberman (Conn.), Reid (Nev.), Robb (Va.), Shelby (Ala.).

Republicans for--Bond (Mo.), Brown (Colo.), Burns (Mont.), Chafee (R.I.), Coats (Ind.), Cochran (Miss.), Cohen (Me.), Craig (Ida.), D’Amato (N.Y.), Danforth (Mo.), Dole (Kan.), Domenici (N.M.), Durenberger (Minn.), Garn (Utah), Gorton (Wash.), Gramm (Tex.), Hatch (Utah), Heinz (Pa.), Helms (N.C.), Jeffords (Vt.), Kassebaum (Kan.), Kasten (Wis.), Lott (Miss.), Lugar (Ind.), Mack (Fla.), McCain (Ariz.), McConnell (Ky.), Murkowski (Alaska), Nickles (Okla.), Packwood (Ore.), Pressler (S.D.), Roth (Del.), Rudman (N.H.), Seymour (Calif.), Simpson (Wyo.), Smith (N.H.), Specter (Pa.), Stevens (Alaska), Symms (Ida.), Thurmond (S.C.), Wallop (Wyo.), Warner (Va.).

Democrats against--Adams (Wash.), Akaka (Hawaii), Baucus (Mont.), Bentsen (Tex.), Biden (Del.), Bingaman (N.M.), Boren (Okla.), Bradley (N.J.), Bumpers (Ark.), Burdick (N.D.), Byrd (W.Va.), Conrad (N.D.), Daschle (S.D.), DeConcini (Ariz.), Dixon (Ill.), Dodd (Conn.), Exon (Neb.), Ford (Ky.), Fowler (Ga.), Glenn (Ohio), Harkin (Iowa), Hollings (S.C.), Inouye (Hawaii), Kennedy (Mass.), Kerrey (Neb.), Kerry (Mass.), Kohl (Wis.), Lautenberg (N.J.), Leahy (Vt.), Levin (Mich.), Metzenbaum (Ohio), Mikulski (Md.), Mitchell (Me.), Moynihan (N.Y.), Nunn (Ga.), Pell (R.I.), Pryor (Ark.), Riegle (Mich.), Rockefeller (W.Va.), Sanford (N.C.), Sarbanes (Md.), Sasser (Tenn.), Simon (Ill.), Wellstone (Minn.), Wirth (Colo.).

Republicans against--Grassley (Iowa), Hatfield (Ore.).

Democrats not voting--Cranston (Calif.).

Republicans not voting--none.