When it comes to campaigning, Rick Perry seldom makes a mistake, but he may have made a big one with his hamhanded and ill-timed fundraising tactics. Perry has been aggressively seeking contributions for his 2010 reelection bid at the same time that Republican candidates and strategists are trying to raise money for the 2008 campaign. Donors in Dallas and Houston, where Republican candidates face some crucial races, are said to be particularly unhappy that Perry is more concerned about himself than with the good of the party, especially since he isn’t even on the ballot and his primary race–if he runs–is still 20 months away. This may explain why Perry’s July fundraising report was unimpressive. Now he wants to raise $8 million by November. Why? Because that is reportedly the amount that Hutchison has on hand. Meanwhile, Hutchison has been contributing money to Republicans in local races.

I am hesitant to write Perry’s political obituary prematurely — he has been counted out before only to survive — but I think his fundraising efforts smack either of an inflated ego (maybe he really does think his 2010 race is more important than the upcoming election) or of desperation. I think it is more the latter. He must know by now that he can’t scare Hutchison out of this race. (Note to self: You may regret writing this line.) He must know by now that his transportation, education, environmental, and health policies are unpopular. He must know by now that he can’t beat Hutchison in a Republican primary unless she makes a major mistake. Money is his best hope, and he has done harm to his ability to raise it.

So, what should Hutchison do? I wrote in my post about Hutchison telling congressional Republicans that she is definitely running:

Nor do I understand why Hutchison won’t make her intentions public. Every day that goes by gives Rick Perry the chance to raise money for his reelection. Isn’t it in her interest to announce that she definitely intends to file for governor? That would make donors think twice before they contribute to Perry. There is no reason to make this into a soap opera. After 2002 and 2006, there are a lot of folks who want to see proof that she is serious about running. What is the upside of playing coy? I can’t find any.

A senior Republican strategist disagrees: The legislative session is going to be a train wreck. If she is a declared candidate, she will be called upon to comment on what is happening in Austin and what Perry is doing. She needs to spend time with thoughtful people learning about state issues. A shorter campaign is to her advantage. The best time for her to announce is after the session.

One of the first things that I became aware of when I interviewed House members was that Republicans are quite angry about the procedural rules being employed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to control floor debate. This is rather arcane stuff, and my understanding of it is imperfect, but I will endeavor to explain the Republicans’ concerns. I had interviews with Pete Sessions, a member of the Rules Committee, and Joe Barton, the former chairman, now ranking member, of the Energy and Commerce committee. Their observations were similar: The committee process is being bypassed and the rules are being used to bring bills to the floor in a way that effectively prevents the minority party from offering alternatives and getting votes on their proposals.

The regular procedure for debating bills is that the Rules Committee, which is dominated by the majority party, sets the rules for debate. An “open rule” allows amendments. A “closed rule” prohibits amendments. The rules committee may also allow certain amendments to be offered and prohibit others. Thus the majority can control the debate. I recall a situation some years ago when a coalition of conservative Democrats and Republicans were working on a compromise minimum wage bill, but the Democratic Rules Committee adopted a rule that said that an amendment could only be offered by the minority leader. This rule effectively tied the hands of the conservative Democrats and killed any chance of a compromise.

The only procedural recourse for the minority (other than attempting to vote down the rule, which occasionally works) is a motion to recommit–to send the bill back to committee. The motion to recommit can include amendments favored by the minority. The motion to recommit is protected in the House Rules; the Rules Committee may not adopt a rule prohibiting a motion to recommit. This tactic works occasionally, when the majority is split, as the Democrats are on energy, with conservative Democrats siding with the Republicans in favor of more drilling. However, this is not the process that is being used to conduct business in the House today. Instead, the Rules Committee authorizes a motion to suspend the rules. This requires a 2/3 vote. Rules suspensions are typically used for bipartisan or noncontroversial legislation–say, naming a post office, or offering the congratulations of the House.

The Democrats are utilizing rules suspensions for major legislation. The National Journal’s “Congressional DailyAM” calls it an “expedited procedure.” Once the debate is conducted under a motion to suspend the rules, the rules preclude amendments, substitutes, or a motion to recommit. The first thing I asked when I heard about this from Sessions and Barton is why are the Democrats are doing this, since they are several dozen seats short of the two-thirds majority necessary to suspend the rules. To hear the Republicans tell it, the Democrats have to address major issues–energy, for example–but, “They fear the Republican alternative,” as Barton put it. There are enough “energy Democrats” from oil-, gas-, and coal-producing states (Houston congressman Gene Green is their leader) that if the Republicans could make a motion to recommit coupled with an amendment to open up offshore drilling, they might win, to the immense embarrassment of the Democratic leadership.

The appropriations process is also caught up in the rules issue. Appropriations bills traditionally come to the floor with an open rule, but Appropriations chairman David Obey has “shut the appropriations process down,” Barton says. On my second day in Washington, Congress DailyAM carried a story that began:

“House Appropriations Chairman David Obey said Wednesday [July 16] he has not completely shut the door on the appropriations process, but declined to say which, or how many, of the 12 annual spending bills for FY09 he plans to complete. ‘I know which bills I would like to proceed with because I know which bills the White House would squawk the most about if we don’t get them done, but I am not about to advertiswe that because it gives away my cards,’ Obey said….”

Democrats believe that going through the full process is futile because President Bush has already vowed to veto any bill that spends more than his budget recommendations. Obey only wants to get the spending bills through the various Appropriations subcommittees, because, he says, Republicans will offer a large number of amendments in the full committee that would essentially filibuster the bills at the committee level.

Democrats will probably resort to continuing resolutions to fund the federal government. Republicans will not be able to offer amendments or motions to recommit. What the Democrats want, as Republicans see it, is to be able to use the process to avoid any tough votes before the election, prevent President Bush from wielding his veto pen, and delay the budget until after the next president (whom, of course, they hope will be Barack Obama) takes office.

How do the Democrats get anything done? “The answer is, they’re not,” Barton said. There is plenty of debate, but no action. The D’s control the process and are able to present popular proposals. The Republicans can attack them, but the suspension process prevents them from offering alternatives that can be voted on.

* * * *

The Democrats had their gripes when the Republicans were in power. They complained, for example, that Tom DeLay held votes open too long while he threatened and cajoled recalcitrant members. But the R’s at least allowed the Democrats to have their say. I side with them 100% on their criticism of the Democrats’ procedure. It is wrong to use the rules to prevent the minority from offering alternatives. That is the only arrow in the minority’s quiver. They can’t win, but they shouldn’t be silenced. The larger picture, though, is that there is no real debate in the U.S. House. The rules require that all remarks must be addressed to the speaker. The Texas House of Representative is a true battleground. A member can stand at the back microphone and question the author of a bill. The author is held accountable. In Washington, there is no debate, no one-on-one, even in committee. Everything is contrived in a back room. For democracy in action, the process in the Texas House is far better than that of Congress.

No, I didn’t hear it directly from her. I got it indirectly from a Texas Republican congressman who is a strong supporter of hers. He got it from her. She has been having regular meetings with Republican members of the Texas delegation (19 R’s, 13 D’s), telling them that she will run and seeking their support. She has received affirmative answers from all but two. One of the holdouts is Sam Johnson. I did not learn the identity of the other, but my guess is Ron Paul. It certainly isn’t Kay Granger, who wants to run for the seat herself. Hutchison will resign from the Senate about a year from now, my source told me, after the legislative session.

The R’s aren’t thrilled about being in the middle of a potential Hutchison-Perry primary showdown. They would have sided with Perry in 2006, but he has done too many controversial things that he can’t undo: the Trans-Texas Corridor, the coal plants, the HPV controversy, his hostility to the education community, both public and higher.

How much influence Hutchison will have in the Senate in the next twelve months is a serious matter. She still has a Republican leadership position, but she’s never been a member of the Senate “club.” Everybody knows she is leaving, and once the switch is pulled that starts the clock running, it is only natural that other senators will look to colleagues who will be around for the foreseeable future.

For those who welcome Kay’s long awaited bid for state leadership, I have some sobering news. Her chief adviser, I was told, is none other than Phil Gramm. Worse, he is involved in every major decision. I do not understand this at all. What does Gramm bring to the table? He couldn’t get to first base with his own presidential bid in 1996. More recently, he shot himself in the foot with his comments about Americans being a bunch of whiners and the country being in a mental recession and had to resign from the McCain campaign.

Nor do I understand why Hutchison won’t make her intentions public. Every day that goes by gives Rick Perry the chance to raise money for his reelection. Isn’t it in her interest to announce that she definitely intends to file for governor? That would make donors think twice before they contribute to Perry. There is no reason to make this into a soap opera. After 2002 and 2006, there are a lot of folks who want to see proof that she is serious about running. What is the upside of playing coy? I can’t find any.

In the meantime, the Perry crowd can resume their tactics of trying to “get in her head.” A few weeks back, there was a fundraiser for the GOP Victory ‘08 committee, headed by former Secretary of State Roger Williams. According to my congressional source, every major Republican officeholder received an invitation–except Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Congressional Quarterly has changed its evaluation of three Texas congressional races, in the 7th, 10th, and 22nd districts. Two of the three shifts are in the Democrats’ direction:

7th District (Houston) John Culberson, Republican incumbent, vs. Democrat Mike Skelly. Two years ago, in a down Republican year, Culberson won reelection with 59% of the vote. This year will be tougher. Skelly made a fortune in the wind energy business, and he has $1 million in the bank, most of which, according to CQ, is from individual donors; his campaign is among the best-funded in the nation. (Culberson’s web site says he has $550,000, after a slow start.) This district has been represented by the elder George Bush and by former appropriations chairman Bill Archer, but Culberson is not up to this legacy. Culberson sits on the Appropriations committee, and he has secured some funding for the Texas Medical Center, but he is at heart a fiscal conservative who takes credit for voting against some $345 billion in spending. Some elements of the Houston business community are none too pleased with him. The Greater Houston Partnership sent an emissary to Culberson to ask him to arrange for funding for highway beautification. Culberson’s response, according to the emissary (who told me this story), was to pull out a copy of the Constitution and say something along the lines of, “Show me where it says the federal government can buy trees.” While the district remains strongly Republican, Skelly’s camp notes that it includes areas that are more moderate, such as River Oaks. The only poll that I am aware of was taken by IVR in the spring; it showed Culberson with a 57-39 lead. The poll identified candidates by party, which may account for the low number of undecided voters. CQ’s original rating of the race was “Safe Republican”; the change is to “Republican Favored.” If Culberson’s position were to continue to erode, the next steps would be “Leans Republican” and then “No Clear Favorite.” The main reason for this change is Skelly’s advantage in fundraising in an expensive media market. Update: If the business community had issues with Culberson before, you can bet they have more issues since Culberson said, “NASA is a waste of money” in an electronic town hall meeting earlier this month. NASA employs 20,000 people in the Houston area and receives billions of dollars worth of government contracts that benefit the Houston economy. Culberson has apologized for the gaffe, but the remark was revealing.

10th District (northeast Travis County, western Harris county, and the rural counties in between), Michael McCaul, Republican incumbent, vs. Democrat Larry Joe Doherty. As in the 7th district, CQ has revised its rating from “Safe Republican” to “Republican Favored.” CQ Politics cites McCaul’s unimpressive 55% margin in 2006 as a primary reason for the revision. CQ Politics also notes that “… Doherty, a trial lawyer, has had success raising money for his uphill campaign….” In their second quarter filings, McCaul showed $489,054 cash on hand against Doherty’s $259,792. An IVR spring poll showed McCaul ahead by 51%-46%. Doherty is something of an eccentric candidate; he was a celebrity judge on a TV show called “Texas Justice.” He has gotten some criticism from Democrats for having a Republican as his head fundraiser. McCaul’s main problem is that the Travis County portion of the district outvotes the Harris County portion of the district, and Travis County is deep, deep blue. If McCaul is going to have a long career in Congress, he is going to need a friendlier district when redistricting occurs in 2011.

22nd District (mostly eastern Fort Bend county and southern Harris County), incumbent Democrat Nick Lampson vs. Pete Olson. CQ now rates the race as “No Clear Favorite” instead of “Leans Democratic.” Lampson, who won the seat practically by default when Tom DeLay resigned from Congress in 2006, leaving the Republicans with only a write-in campaign. Olson is a tough opponent, a former chief of staff for John Cornyn. CQ cites Olson’s background as a military veteran and his Capitol Hill ties that have helped him raise money, as reasons for the changed rating. CQ notes that Lampson has a much more moderate voting record than he did when he represented Southeast Texas before the 2003 redistricting. Both candidates have raised well over a million dollars, but Olson had to survive a primary and a runoff, leaving him far behind Lampson in cash on hand, $1,148,414 to $261,203.

During an interview with congressman Pete Sessions, of Dallas, he brought up the “Employee Free Choice Act,” which the Democrats have been pushing for the last couple of years. The bill would allow the National Labor Relations Board to certify a union without conducting a secret-ballot election. Under current law, employers can demand a government-sponsored secret ballot for a union to be recognized.

Under a process known as “card-check,” union members can designate their support for a union simply by signing an authorization card. Union organizers can visit members at their homes to get the signatures. The idea, Sessions said, is to reverse the decline in union membership and to “re-unionize America.” The bill has been reported out of committee in the House.

Sessions said this will be one of the first bills to be acted on next year if Obama is elected. But unless Democrats can muster the 60 votes need for cloture, it will die in the Senate.

It may seem far-fetched back home, but here in Washington there is a good case to be made for Edwards. Basically, it’s this: He is a “strong national defense” Democrat. Edwards became chairman of the House Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee in 2007. He championed an $11.8 billion in veterans’ health care and benefits, which is billed as the largest increase in veterans funding in the history of the Department of Veterans Affairs, going back 77 years. The American Legion gave him its Distinguished Service Award for 2008; it goes to only one of the 535 members of Congress. These are significant credentials for a party, and a presidential nominee, that are vulnerable on the issue of national security and support for the military.

Edwards’ name was entered in the vice-presidential sweepstakes by Nancy Pelosi. They got to know each other when they had adjacent offices some years ago. Pelosi is a strong supporter of veterans’ issues, which are popular with groups of swing voters such as “security moms”; being pro-vet is a way to oppose the war but “revere the warrior.” Many in Washington have dismissed Pelosi’s support for Edwards as simply an effort to keep the House in the game, but there is more to it than that. Edwards has always been good on television, and, while he is not as conservative as the blue dogs, he is far from a liberal. One Edwards support told me that only two Democratic presidents since 1900 have been elected when there was no Southerner on the ticket (including the nominee)–Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. True, but … there have been only five other Democratic presidents since 1900, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Carter, and Clinton being the others).

What about the competition? Here circumstances might favor Edwards. Some of the major contenders are from red states: senators Bayh of Indiana and Webb of Virginia, and governor Sebelius of Kansas. Democrats don’t want to risk losing these key positions. On the other hand, the 17th congressional district of Texas is not so crucial to the fortunes of the Democratic party. There are other possibilities out there, such the other Edwards (or is Chet the “other” Edwards?), who is from North Carolina. But John couldn’t deliver his home state in 2000. Nor can Chet deliver Texas. I think, in the end, Obama will look for a bigger name, but Edwards is a serious contender.

I’m here to work on a feature story and also to interview members of the Texas congressional delegation. The latter has been less successful than the former, because, although I allotted an entire week for the visit, no votes were scheduled for last Friday or this Monday or Tuesday, which is another way of saying that they are taking a five-day weekend. Just about everybody went back to their districts. 

I learned more here from two interviews and a day of reading than I knew from a month of reading the Times and the Post and watching cable news back home for a month. In addition to the papers and the networks, a number of specialty publications are devoted to coverage of Congress. Two of them have been around for awhile – The Hill and Roll Call — and the others are Politico, CQ Today (Congressional Quarterly), and CongressDaily AM (National Journal). 

One of the interesting things that I picked up from these publications:

* Relations are strained between Senate Republicans and the White House over the president’s veto of the Medicare bill that prevented cuts in payments to physicians. Bush vetoed the bill after a 69-30 cloture vote in the Senate to end a “filibuster.” (These days, no one actually filibusters; they just object to a bill, and it takes two-thirds to override the objection.) Four Republican senators stuck with the president through the cloture vote but then voted to override his veto. Some of the comments from a GOP aide: “The White House asked its members to stick their necks out one time too many.” “”Even though it seemed clear that the votes weren’t there, the White House sent it back up to ask members to walk the plank once again.” And this from respected GOP elder statesman Richard Lugar, who, when asked if the White House was disgruntled about his vote to override, said he would tell them, “Well, you better get real and understand what is occurring out here in America, with actual people.”

For the one-millionth time, I cannot help but wonder what in the world has happened to the George W. Bush I knew. Or thought I knew. He isn’t even making a pretense of leading the country any more.