Democrats Try to Paint Bush Into Corner : Legislation: They are structuring bills so that he either harms his domestic image by vetoing them or angers GOP conservatives by signing them.

WASHINGTON — Democratic congressional leaders, seizing on President Bush’s weakness in the polls, are intensifying their efforts to push through legislation calculated to present him with an embarrassing choice: being damned if he vetoes the measures and damned if he doesn’t.

In recent weeks, the Democrats have been loading bills with provisions that they know Bush cannot stomach in hopes of forcing him to opt between vetoing them, which would make him seem unsympathetic to domestic problems, or signing them, which would anger Republican conservatives.

The congressional leaders also want to deprive Bush of any significant legislative victories before the November election and to heighten the impression that he is unable to deal effectively with them.

The increased Democratic aggressiveness has shown up in a spate of politically sensitive measures, from urban aid to campaign financing legislation to a bill to extend the eligibility for unemployment compensation.

Although such partisan maneuvering is traditional during a presidential election year, both lawmakers and congressional observers say the current efforts exceed the usual standard.

“It’s like 1980 was with (former President) Jimmy Carter, where he was on the run and everyone knew he was on the run,” says Rep. Thomas J. Downey (D-N.Y.). “The President’s weakness makes everyone bolder,” he says. “Democrats feel it’s open season” on Bush.

Charles Cook, an independent political analyst, agrees that the intensity of the veto-dare strategy has outstripped that of most presidential election years. “This is the kind of thing that you never saw 20 years ago,” he says.

At the same time, some Congress-watchers warn that the tactic eventually could backfire, reinforcing the image of excessive partisanship that many voters seem convinced is the root of Washington’s current political paralysis.

William Schneider, a political analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, contends that, in turn, would play right into the hands of still-undeclared independent candidate Ross Perot.

The public frustration sparked by the wrangling between Bush and Congress “is why Perot exists,” Schneider says.

Perhaps the most notable example of Democratic efforts to create dilemmas for Bush came in the bill to provide aid to riot-torn Los Angeles and establish a jobs program in urban areas this summer. The House approved $994.6 million--about what Bush asked for--but the Senate boosted the total package to $2 billion.

The way Democratic leaders had it planned, if Bush were to have vetoed the legislation, he would have risked being lambasted as insensitive. But if he signed it, he would have acquiesced to budget-busting.

But House Democratic leaders were forced to back down Wednesday from the higher figure when they were unable to muster the votes for its passage. They agreed to a compromise $1-billion measure that is expected to pass today.

The Democrats also stacked the recent campaign finance bill by refusing to provide sufficient funding--although the cost easily could hit $200 million every two years--and by limiting the President’s ability to use Air Force One for campaign trips.

“Here was a bill that was designed to guarantee a veto,” says Cook.

Bush, in fact, vetoed it last month.

Changes made in the House to the unemployment compensation bill also seem designed to embarrass the President. The measure’s cost was doubled and a rider was tacked on to limit the ability of corporations to deduct the cost of their executives’ salaries, a move that Bush adamantly opposes.

And House Democratic leaders amended the defense budget bill to bar the Administration from continuing U.S. testing of nuclear weapons, despite Bush’s well-known objections to such a prohibition.

Both the unemployment compensation bill and the defense budget measure are pending before the Senate.

For its part, the Senate voted to authorize a steep 50% increase in funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which oversees the popular public radio and television system. Once again, the choice is grim: Is Bush against National Public Radio or for budget-busting?

Democratic congressional leaders officially deny they are pursuing a legislative strategy designed to paint the President into a corner. “The issue is not who can embarrass whom,” says Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.). “There are strong differences in priorities on what should be done.”

But Hoyer and other Democrats do not hide their satisfaction over the fact that they seem to have Bush squirming as they plant their election-year time bombs. “I think the President’s paying a price for lack of leadership on a domestic agenda,” he says.