NEWS ANALYSIS : Many Doubt Clinton Will Break His Veto-Less Record : Legislation: Despite threats, he’s yet to reject a bill. His party is urging him to fight the GOP agenda by using the power of the pen--soon.

In threatening to veto a number of approaching bills, President Clinton has seized a powerful weapon in his battle to confront a Republican agenda and re-establish his relevance.

The only problem is, Republicans don’t believe he will use it. Nor do a lot of Democrats.

With assertive Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, the veto may represent the Democrats’ best hope of shaping legislation on a host of explosive fiscal and social issues, from welfare to gun control.

And yet, despite his threats, Clinton has not vetoed a single bill. Not since feckless Millard Fillmore in the 1850s has a President compiled such a record of seeking harmony with Congress.

To be sure, with Democrats in control of Congress during the first two years of his term, Clinton has had little obvious opportunity for a veto. But other presidents, including many whose party controlled Congress, have searched for bills to step on, just to establish that they would take on the considerable political risks of using the legislative weapon.

With that goal in mind, for instance, President Franklin D. Roosevelt reportedly barked at an aide: “Find me a bill I can veto.” And he vetoed 700 of them in 12 years in office.

Or consider Jimmy Carter’s record. Even though his Congress had a whopping Democratic majority, Carter vetoed 19 bills in his first two years, most of them spending legislation that he considered unconscionable pork. Lyndon B. Johnson vetoed his first bill, a tariff measure, within five weeks of assuming power in 1963.

With beleaguered Democrats now stripped of congressional control, some of the party’s leaders are prodding Clinton to act--soon.

Growing sentiment among congressional Democrats for a veto was evident recently when more than 100 House Democrats, including members of the leadership, pushed the President to reject a bill that combined a politically appealing tax break for the self-employed with controversial loopholes for media mogul Rupert Murdoch and 24 expatriate billionaires. And at a White House meeting with 25 House members, Clinton was bluntly told that he needed to show more fight.

But despite a fiery speech in Dallas on April 7, when he pledged to veto bills not to his liking in half a dozen areas, some allies remain unconvinced of his resolve.

“He’s waited so long that people just wonder if he’ll ever get around to it,” said one impatient House Democrat.

Clinton’s most famous use of the veto threat came in last year’s State of the Union Address, when he waved his pen and declared he would veto any health care bill that didn’t offer health insurance for all Americans. Some were immediately skeptical, and by the following summer, Clinton was quietly backing away from the threat.

During his 12 years as Arkansas governor, when he had power to veto any line item in the state budget, Clinton used his authority only about once a year on average.

Some observers portray this as a struggle of the President against himself.

“We know Bill Clinton from childhood as family peacemaker, political conciliator,” said Ross K. Baker, a congressional expert at Rutgers University. But even though those instincts are essential in so much of government, “they may not be right for calling a battered and besieged party to battle. When (House Speaker) Newt Gingrich is feeding his troops good, red meat, Bill Clinton can’t be spooning out gruel.”

Clinton said earlier this week that a high legislative success rate in his first two years and his support of all three bills that have come to him so far in 1995 have meant that he has had no need to use his veto power.

“All this talk is: ‘Let’s see some vetoes,’ ” he told CNN. “Send me a bad bill--I’ll be happy to veto it.” But he added: “I did not run for office to sign a pack of vetoes. . . . “

Certainly, Clinton’s highly cautious approach to veto threats may be understandable, given the risks and difficulties of using the strategy.

In trying to employ it now, Clinton faces the danger that Republicans will try to package legislation in a way that will make it very difficult for him to turn anything away. Some analysts expect the GOP to try to roll a huge range of bills into the budget reconciliation measure that will tie up the loose ends of the budget year in August or September.

“You’ll see a real cat-and-mouse game over this,” said Charles Jones, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

Congress’ recent passage of line-item veto legislation will give Clinton the authority to veto sections of legislation that he dislikes. But Republicans are likely to drag out the upcoming legislative conference on that bill for some time, though if they continue it for too long Clinton could counterattack with accusations that they are thwarting an important ingredient in the their own “contract with America.”

Also thorny is finding the right bill for his first veto attempt. Optimally, this will be a bill that involves some elements he both likes and dislikes, so Clinton can show that he is willing to swallow hard to enforce his will.

Of course, it is essential that he gets enough support from congressional Democrats to avoid an override, which requires a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate. A failure to sustain his first veto could do further damage to his political standing.

Some allies said they believe that Clinton may get a good opportunity for a veto if Congress shapes a pending bill of midyear budget cuts in line with the $17-billion version passed by the House. Since the bill contains sharp cuts in services for poor and middle-income Americans, Clinton could portray it as another example of Republican heartlessness.

The bill is big enough to be important, yet not so critical “that it could blow up the world,” said Rep. Robert T. Matsui (D-Sacramento). And once Congress rewrote it to accommodate Clinton, “he obviously could claim victory.”

But some observers on Capitol Hill believe that the first veto may not come until late in the summer, when spending bills begin to clear both houses. In the meantime, the President may need to find other ways to show his pluck and prove his relevance.

“His biggest problem since last November’s election has been to (demonstrate) his power,” Jones said. “So, in that sense, this delay will just delay his agony.”