By ROBERT MACKAY

Two who also run: Anderson and Crane

Native son presidential candidates Anderson and Crane are both long shots for the GOP nomination. Their opposed positions on the issues reveals the liberal-conservative split in the Republican party

THEY ARE both Republican congressmen from Illinois; they both want to be president of the United States and they are both considered long shots to achieve that goal. That's about where the similarities end between John B. Anderson of Rockford and Philip M. Crane of Arlington Heights.

The two men represent opposite ends of the political spectrum among the Republican candidates for the presidential nomination. Anderson, of the 16th Congressional District in northwestern Illinois, is considered a moderate liberal within his own party. Crane, of the 12th District in northeastern Illinois, is among the most conservative members of Congress.

Crane, 49, was the first candidate to announce for the 1980 presidential election, in August 1978. Anderson announced in June 1979. But their name recognition is still low across the country, and neither man is expected by political observers to be able to win a single primary — including the one this month in their home state.

In a recent poll of GOP voters in some congressional districts in the state, which was commissioned by the Illinois Reagan for President Committee and tabulated by the Midwest Research Association, both men finished behind former California Gov. Ronald Reagan, former Texas Gov. John Connally, Sen. Howard Baker of Tennessee and former Ambassador George Bush. The only candidate they beat was Sen. Robert Dole of Kansas.

Why then do Anderson and Crane continue in what appears to be hopeless campaigns, spending their time and money when it is unlikely they can even capture a sizable number of delegates from their own state?

Crane, a member of Congress for 10 years, felt that if he got in the race early and campaigned vigorously, the voters would view him as a young alternative to Reagan. Both Crane and Reagan represent the conservative faction of the GOP and hold similar views on the issues.

Soon after announcing his candidacy, Crane — a handsome man with strong facial features and thick, black hair — was portrayed by some members of the media as'' the Kennedy of the Midwest." Pictures often showed him surrounded by his wife and eight children. But his campaign ran into trouble early, both organizationally and financially. Several of his aides either resigned or were fired. And Crane could not mount the kind of massive campaign needed to swing former Reagan supporters to his side And while his name recognition improved somewhat, the number of Republican candidates for president increased and probably doused whatever chance he had of becoming a major, viable alternative to Reagan.

Campaign strategies

Crane's campaign strategy was to finish close behind the front-runners in the early primaries and caucuses and then finish first or second in the Illinois primary or later in the Wisconsin

4/March 1980/Illinois Issues

primary. "I've got to break out of the pack so it's not 'Phil who' at the end of March," Crane said. "If we can get a good chunk of delegates out of Illinois and some out of the earlier states, then we'll dig in for the long haul."

But even if Crane drops out of the race or sees it through to the end and loses, he will still probably have a job in Washington. His House term expires this year, but he is also running for reelection.

That's not the case with Anderson. He has decided to gamble for it all, after serving 20 years in Congress and becoming the third ranking Republican in the House. His term also expires this year but he has decided not to run for reelection. Anderson, 57, is well respected by Capitol Hill reporters, who consider him one of the most intelligent, articulate members of the House. Dole, a long-shot rival for the nomination, himself says flatly: "Anderson is the brightest man running for president."

Anderson considers himself a conservative in fiscal matters and a liberal on social issues, often saying he carries "my heart on the left and my pocket-book on the right." He is against a constitutional amendment to balance the budget and supports a 3 percent increase in defense spending, and has been a longtime supporter of civil and women's rights. But his name recognition among voters is also very low, despite his long tenure in the House and his reputation among his colleagues and the news media. And while he is a definite alternative to the other GOP candidates, he is running for the nomination of a political party composed of voters who mostly consider themselves conservatives.

A few months ago, some of his campaign aides in Washington were privately expressing regret that Anderson had not sought the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Adlai E. Stevenson III. He would have had a much better chance of winning that nomination, they said. But since the debate in Iowa, the campaign has picked up steam. People impressed with Anderson's showing in the debate began calling his campaign offices to volunteer help and money. And those same Anderson aides, while not overly optimistic, see some hope.

Political observers in Washington still make Anderson a long shot to capture the nomination, but many express hope that the eventual GOP nominee will grab Anderson as his vice presidential candidate. Both Anderson and Crane give the same answer when asked if they would consider the vice presidential nomination: they do not rule it out but say they are not going through all this trouble for the No. 2 job.

Both Anderson and Crane disagree with President Carter's contention that labor and business are responsible for the wage-price spiral

Their views

Here are the views of the two candidates on some of the issues in the presidential campaign:

Inflation — Both Anderson and Crane disagree with President Carter's contention that labor and business are responsible for the wage-price spiral. They put the blame on excessive federal spending. Crane wants a constitutional amendment to restrain federal spending, an across-the-board, permanent 30 percent cut in income taxes to increase productivity and expansion, and the elimination of taxation of that "portion of a worker's salary increase and earnings which are purely the result of inflation." Anderson is against a constitutional amendment to limit spending, but he has introduced legislation that would require the president to submit a balanced budget to Congress and that would limit federal outlays to 20 percent of the Gross National Product for each year. To increase productivity, Anderson wants to reduce the taxation of interest income by exempting from a taxpayer's gross income the first $500 of the interest earned on a savings account. He also supports reforming tax depreciation allowances to permit a 10-year write-off for buildings, a 5-year write-off for equipment and a 3-year write-off for trucks and cars.

Energy — Both candidates support the president's decision to decontrol domestic crude oil prices, and the use of energy alternatives such as coal, solar and nuclear. "We are not going to 'save our way out' of energy shortages," Crane says, "we must produce our way out." While Crane promotes increased production of domestic oil, Anderson has proposed a method to conserve gasoline: a 50-cent a gallon tax on all motor fuels, which he says could reduce gas consumption by 5 to 10 percent. Proceeds from such a tax would be used to reduce Social Security payroll taxes and increase benefits.

Foreign Policy — This is the area where the two candidates seem to differ the most. Crane was against the Panama Canal Treaty, the strategic arms limitation treaty with the Soviets, the decision not to recognize Taiwan as the government of China, and is critical of the Carter administration's refusal to force the Soviet Union to remove its combat troops from Cuba. If elected president, Crane says, he would consider ordering the Soviets to remove their troops from Cuba within 48 hours. If they persisted, he would terminate consideration of the SALT II Treaty, form a naval blockade around Cuba and employ economic sanctions against the Soviets. Crane is also in favor of establishing nuclear superiority over the Russians, and thus favors the B-1 bomber and the MX missile system. Anderson supports the Panama Canal Treaty, the normalization of relations with mainland China and the SALT II Treaty. He believes the United States should not become "obsessed with confrontation and that when possible we should attempt to soothe rather than exacerbate our relations" with the Soviets. He is in favor of a modest 3 percent increase in defense spending but is against the B-1 bomber and the MX. Anderson is the only Republican presidential candidate to support Carter's grain embargo against the Soviets in retaliation for the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Crane feels the embargo will hurt the American farmer more than the Russians.

Abortion — Crane is against legalized abortion, while Anderson believes

March 1980/Illinois Issues/5

women should have a choice on whether to seek an abortion. "It should be decided by a woman in conjunction with her God and her physician," Anderson says. ''The state simply cannot be allowed to interfere with this intimate choice."

Equal Rights Amendment — Anderson is a strong supporter of the ERA and voted in favor of extending the deadline for ratification of the ERA when the proposal was before the House in 1978. Because of his strong support, the National Organization for Women was leaning toward endorsing Anderson for president. Crane is against the ERA because he believes it to be "unwise and unnecessary. Truly serious sex discrimination is already illegal under existing state and federal laws and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution," Crane says.

Their views on the issues show how far apart Anderson and Crane are, and it is little wonder that Anderson is constantly asked by prospective voters why he isn't a Democrat

Civil Rights — Crane has introduced legislation to eliminate court-ordered busing of school children to achieve desegregation. He believes forced busing only punishes the children and says, "Our efforts should be directed toward improving the quality of schools with an emphasis on the three R's and vocational-technical training." He is also against affirmative action quotas because he believes they perpetuate discrimination by favoring one citizen over another based on color, sex or nationality. Crane also favors capital punishment and is against gun control. Anderson supports busing "as a last resort" but voted against a bill that would have eliminated it. A long-time supporter of civil rights, Anderson actively worked for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Open Housing Bill of 1968. Anderson is against the death penalty and total gun control, favoring only the licensing of gun owners.

Their views on the issues show how far apart Anderson and Crane are, and it is little wonder that Anderson is constantly asked by prospective voters why he isn't a Democrat. He asks voters who support his views to vote for him and help broaden the base of the Republican party.

Conservative, liberal

The American Conservative Union (ACU) recently announced Crane was the most conservative of the 1980 presidential candidates in Congress last year. The ACU gave Crane a 100 percent rating, and Anderson 33 percent. The only other presidential candidate in Congress to get a lower rating than Anderson was Sen. Edward Kennedy (D., Mass.), who was awarded a zero.

In Congress, Anderson is considered an endangered species. He represents a rapidly dwindling liberal wing of the GOP that once produced Dwight Eisenhower and Nelson Rockefeller.

In the Iowa caucuses, Crane received 6.7 percent of the straw vote and Anderson got 4.3 percent, only beating Sen. Robert Dole of Kansas. Yet, both Crane and Anderson said they were happy with their showings. Anderson said he was elated because he did not consider himself in the Iowa race and never campaigned in the state. Crane said his finish was better than expected and he hoped "to inherit a lot" of Reagan supporters disappointed with the Reagan campaign.

Anderson has raised about $462,000 and received another $300,000 in federal matching funds, while the Crane campaign raised over $3 million.

Crane has concentrated heavily on Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Florida and Illinois, while Anderson has pinned his hopes on four states: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Illinois and Wisconsin.

Anderson press secretary Mark Bisnow said Anderson's showing in Illinois "has got to be good" or the campaign will lose momentum.

So, the two Republican long shots are looking to their home state for help. How well they do in Illinois will probably determine if they remain in the race.

6/March 1980/Illinois Issues