Reactions Muted to House Overdraft List : Ethics: The public seems to be growing weary of the banking scandal. But analysts believe the issue will probably return to haunt incumbents.

Like most sequels, the release of a second list of congressional overdraft writers--what some pundits are calling “The Doomsday List-Part II”--is making less of a splash than the original, much to the relief of those whose names are on it.

When the House Ethics Committee released on Thursday the second list of lawmakers who had written overdrafts on their House bank accounts, many of the 303 current and former members of Congress named in it braced for angry reactions similar to those that followed the April 1 disclosure of the 22 worst “abusers” of the bank.

So far, however, the reaction has been muted, although political analysts agree that the issue will probably come back to haunt incumbents in November.

“Actually, yours is the first call I’ve received about it,” an aide to Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.) told a reporter when asked about the reaction to Obey’s 64 overdrafts.

Talk radio hosts whose telephone lines were buzzing when the first list was released report a decline in interest. “None,” said news director Jerry Bell, when asked how many calls his Denver radio station had received a day after the list was released.

One reason for the difference may be that, like Obey, many who knew they would be on the new list already had gone public with their overdrafts. “In our case, the angry reactions all came several weeks ago,” the Obey aide said, adding “there are signs that it’s tapering off now.”

But interviews with voters across the country this weekend also suggested another reason: Although most still strongly disapprove of the conduct of House members who frequently wrote bad checks, many also said they were growing weary of the scandal and believe it is being overplayed by the media.

“I feel we’ve been desensitized,” said Ronald Richo, a Boston salesman. “There’s just too much of this.”

Richo’s exasperation typified the sentiments expressed by others who suggested that voters already believe politicians are corrupt and there is no point emphasizing that fact in an election year when other important issues should be discussed.

“It doesn’t bother me any longer,” said John Campo, the manager of a pizzeria in Hanover, Mass. “It did when I first heard about it. I thought it was another crooked scheme by Congress. But as I think about it, as time goes by, I realize it’s probably something that’s an accepted way of life” in Washington.

Like many others, Campo also blamed the media for “going overboard” and not knowing “when to stop beating a dead horse.”

“All of these things have a half-life and this one had so much fury at the beginning that after a while people get tired of talking about it,” said Paul Clarke, a Northridge Republican consultant.

But Clarke and other political analysts also cautioned that, although voters might be tired of hearing about it, the House bank scandal is not an issue that is likely to disappear before the November elections. “It won’t go away completely because people will remember this as something that Congress did,” Clarke said.

Helping people to remember will be a small army of political challengers hoping to use the low esteem in which Congress is now held to unseat incumbents in the fall.

The official disclosure that House Republican Whip Newt Gingrich of Georgia had written 22 overdrafts--including one for more than $9,000 to the IRS--was only hours old when his Republican primary opponent began distributing blue and orange bumper stickers that said “BOUNCE NEWT.”

Despite the attacks on Gingrich--who like others has apologized for his overdrafts--most Georgia political analysts think he will be reelected because of a weak primary challenge from Herman Clark and because he is running in a solidly Republican district.

The incumbents who are going to be hurt by the scandal are those with large numbers of overdrafts who are running against strong opponents, said Merle Black, a political science professor at Emory University in Atlanta. “You’ll have to look at it on a district by district basis,” .Black said.

“You’re going to have some of the worst abusers who are going to get themselves reelected because they reside in safe districts and they’re not going to have a serious opponent who can take advantage of it. And you’re going to have some of the lesser abusers who could very well be defeated because they’re in competitive districts and have strong opponents who can maximize the issue,” said Allan Hoffenblum, a California Republican political consultant.

An informal sampling of public opinion on Los Angeles’ Westside, which is represented by Democratic Rep. Henry A. Waxman, appeared to support Hoffenblum’s thesis.

Many residents agreed with Simon Rutberg, the owner of a Fairfax Avenue music store, who expressed anger at the perks that “every politician” has to “distinguish them from a normal, working-class person.”

Many also persisted in believing that House members who overdrew their checking accounts had broken the law even though no taxpayer money was involved and the now defunct House “bank” was a private disbursing office that extended penalty-free overdraft protection to its members.

But the interviews also suggested that Waxman, who was listed on Thursday as having had 434 overdrafts, still enjoyed considerable support among his predominantly Jewish constituency.

“If he did anything wrong, he did it inadvertently,” said Joe Herskovitz, the owner of a Fairfax bookstore. “He’s always been a good person and he has our respect,” added Herskovitz’s wife, Bea. “He’s a nice Jewish boy.”

Also contributing to this story were Times staff writers Alan C. Miller in Washington and Petula Dvorak in Los Angeles, and correspondents Doug Conner in Seattle, John Laidler in Boston, Ann Rovin in Denver and Edith Stanley in Atlanta.