Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: THURSDAY, March 21, 1991                   TAG: 9103210448
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-13   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: RAY L. GARLAND
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Long

SENATE VOTES/ ROBB'S RECORD BELIES HIS CONSERVATIVE IMAGE

Such inside politics seldom bother constituents, and the Virginia press properly concluded that any fallout will serve only to strengthen Robb in his adopted state, which still clings to a tattered reputation for preferring more conservative politics. In any case, and regardless of how he votes on specific issues before the Senate, Robb is as safe as a politician can be. Still, it doesn't hurt to look at how he's voting, just in case there are people left who actually care about such things.

From the very large number of special-interest groups that rate members of Congress as "favorable" or "unfavorable" to causes they hold dear, the reputable Congressional Quarterly features only four as being reasonably objective.

For votes taken in 1989 - Robb's first year in the Senate - the Americans for Democratic Action, representing the old liberal wing of the Democratic Party, liked the way he voted 45 percent of the time, while John Warner, Virginia's Republican senator, came in at only 5 percent. The AFL-CIO saw Robb "correct" on 80 percent of the votes labor chose and Warner on just 10 percent.

Moving to the other end of the political spectrum, the American Conservative Union saw Warner "right" on 89 percent of their chosen votes and Robb "wrong" on 64 percent. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, tracking issues affecting business, liked the way Warner voted 88 percent of the time. But the chamber gave Robb a far more favorable rating than it awarded most Democrats - 63 percent.

On the supreme issue of putting the Congress on record behind U.N. resolutions authorizing the use of force to evict Iraq from Kuwait, Robb was one of relatively few Democratic senators supporting President Bush. But on 93 recorded votes in 1990 where Bush had a position, Robb voted with the president on only 55 percent.

When it came to supporting the position of the Democratic leadership, Robb could be counted on 73 percent of the time. Both Robb and Sasser have denied that the "war" vote had anything to do with the decision of Democratic leaders to remove Robb from the budget committee.

While I have examined every vote that Robb has cast on the Senate floor - a task that shouldn't be wished on one's worst enemy - I can make no claim to having done the same thing on committee votes, which are not readily available. There was only one issue that I could find - and that of no great magnitude - where Sasser took a strong line and Robb voted the other way.

In the great saga of the 1991 budget, Sasser was a point man for the Democratic strategy of putting Bush on the defensive, while Robb hid under a chair. But when faced with extreme liberal proposals to soak the rich, Robb and Sasser joined in voting no.

If there's truth in Robb's claim that he was sacked for not going along often enough with Sasser, it probably comes down to a fundamental difference in style. Robb has prospered in a state carried by the Republican presidential candidate in nine of the past 10 elections by generally talking like a Republican. Sasser, once thought endangered even in the more populist politics of Tennessee, has shown a sure instinct for capitalizing on the politics of envy that animate the Democrats' core constituencies.

While Robb has repeatedly urged his party to move toward the "mainstream," Sasser seems to be telling it, "No party ever went broke underestimating the appetite of most Americans to get their hands in somebody else's pocket."

On foreign policy and defense issues, Robb can lay legitimate claim to the mantle of those earlier peace-through-strength Democrats. But those who believe him to be a genuinely conservative Democrat will have their illusions shattered by a close examination of his domestic-policy votes.

If you had to take one issue showing the modern Democrat at work, you would focus on a whole series of votes taken last year to gut the Hatch Act, which was passed in 1939 to prevent the swarm of federal workers brought in by the New Deal from becoming political activists.

Since the main purpose of gutting the Hatch Act is to increase the leverage of federal workers in gaining increased benefits from Congress - and since Democrats are convinced this will help them win elections - it becomes a test of who is serious about controlling rampaging deficits and who isn't.

Not only did Robb go down the line with the Democratic leadership on this issue, he even voted to kill an amendment to prohibit employees of such sensitive agencies as the IRS, the CIA, the Department of Justice and the Federal Election Commission from requesting, receiving or giving political contributions. Robb also voted to kill an amendment allowing federal workers to object to a portion of their union dues being used to support political candidates.

Finally, when given a chance to vote to allow a vote on giving the president the same line-item veto on money bills that he himself enjoyed as governor of Virginia, Robb said no.

While it is certainly possible to respect Robb the man, it is not possible to respect his implied claim that he represents anything fundamentally different in domestic policy from Jim Sasser and the vast majority of other Democratic senators.