Harry Reid's gambit

He once called the “nuclear option” an “un-American” move that would destroy the Senate and “ruin our country.”

But on Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did it anyway. He took the unprecedented step of gutting Senate filibuster rules for presidential nominees on a straight party-line vote, a high-stakes gambit that could have enormous implications for future presidents, reshape an institution he’s served in for 26 years, and ultimately define Reid’s legacy as one of the longest-serving Democratic leaders in history — one with a penchant for bare-knuckled tactics.


On the weekend of Nov. 9, Reid enlisted his top lieutenants, Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York and Dick Durbin of Illinois, to help take the caucus’ temperature. But after several weeks of counting votes, Reid was still encountering skepticism even among his confidants as late as Monday evening. He bucked up his troops ahead of the hugely controversial move.

( Also on POLITICO: Obstructionism vs. Obamacare)

“This is the right thing to do,” Reid told one of his closest advisers. “If I don’t do this, I might as well just walk away.”

As some of his fellow Democratic senators remained on the fence, Reid called in a heavy hitter to close the deal: President Barack Obama, according to sources familiar with the matter. Obama personally called senators on Wednesday to back the move, and Reid ultimately won the vote on a slim margin, 52-48. Just three Democrats broke with Reid: the retiring Carl Levin of Michigan, the moderate Joe Manchin of West Virginia and the vulnerable Mark Pryor of Arkansas.

When the seismic moment finally came, shell-shocked senators in both parties couldn’t believe that Reid pulled the trigger — and were grasping to understand the far-reaching ramifications.

Asked how history would remember him after this move, Reid told POLITICO: “I don’t write history.”

( Also on POLITICO: Senate goes for ‘nuclear option’)

But nobody disputed that the move was emblematic of Reid’s hard-ball style that has come to characterize his leadership in recent years — whether it was his passage of the health care law in 2009 on a straight party-line vote, his willingness to go over the fiscal cliff in 2012 or his refusal to bend to GOP demands during the 16-day government shutdown last month.

Reid’s decision to sharply reverse course speaks to how the majority leader’s views have shifted to reflect his younger, more liberal caucus — whether the subject is immigration, gun control, gay marriage or filibuster reform. It also signals that the growing crop of Senate Democrats who have never served a day in the minority party now wield enormous clout with Reid, who has evolved from being an outspoken opponent of the nuclear option, to a reluctant supporter, to one of its staunchest proponents.

No longer concerned about the political fallout, Reid simply believed that the timing was right to make the change after Republicans blocked Obama’s judicial picks — and, conveniently, as Democrats were on the defensive over Obamacare.

The latest move left Republicans howling in protest and warning that Reid would ultimately come to regret it.

Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina called Reid “a puppet of the president.” Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said he was acting like a “bully.”And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Reid had broken his word that he “never, ever” would go this route.

( PHOTOS: Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid’s friendship)

“For Harry Reid, this has always been about power,” said Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.). “He rammed a rule change through. It’s historic.”

Indeed, for decades, Senate majority leaders have avoided using the manuever for fear that future majority parties would continually weaken — and eventually eliminate — the filibuster. The complicated parliamentary tactic known as the “nuclear option” allows the Senate to set a new precedent by a simple majority of 51 senators, rather than the typical 67 votes that are needed to change the rules by regular order. That means any majority can fundamentally weaken the filibuster without consensus of the minority party, effectively weakening its ability to block, delay or shape legislation.

Under the new rules, senators can no longer filibuster nominees to executive branch posts or the courts, with the exception of the Supreme Court. Legislation could still be filibustered, as could many other Senate actions.

But both sides readily acknowledge that future majorities will cite Reid’s precedent to continue to weaken the filibuster, potentially ending the delaying tactic on all bills and Supreme Court nominees and allowing a simple majority of senators to work their will. In essence, the Senate could become a replica of the majority-rules House.

“Good, let him do it,” Reid said when asked about McConnell’s threats to change the rules further if he becomes majority leader.

Frustrated by gridlock, Democrats said it was about time to take that step — no matter what it means for the future of the institution. But it may only perpetuate the gridlock and could usher in a sweeping conservative agenda the next time the GOP returns to power.

Both sides have reason to complain: The GOP points out that Reid blocked their amendments more than any other majority leader; Democrats say Republicans have used and abused the filibuster.

“Having guts — that’s how,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said when asked how she would characterize Reid’s move.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), a long-time proponent of killing the filibuster, said Reid would be remembered as a leader who brought the Senate into the 21st century.

But Harkin added: “I have had a long-time opposition to changing the rules in the middle of the game. That’s what Tom DeLay did.”

Since the 1940s, the nuclear option — which proponents call the “constitutional option” — has been proposed a number of times but rarely has it been followed through. In 1975, the Senate briefly invoked the nuclear option, but fearing the political fallout, the chamber quickly reversed course; instead, senators cut a deal to lower the threshold to defeat a filibuster to 60 votes, rather than 67.

Since then, frustrated majority leaders have repeatedly vowed to gut the 6o-vote threshold, including in 2005, when then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) promised to invoke the nuclear option to push through George W. Bush’s judicial nominees on a party-line vote.

Reid howled in protest, and McConnell backed Frist. A group of 14 senators ended up cutting a deal saying that no judicial nominees could be filibustered unless there were “extraordinary” circumstances.

“The nuclear option was the most important issue I’d ever worked on in my entire career because if that had gone forward, it would have destroyed the Senate as we know it,” Reid wrote in his 2008 book, the “Good Fight.”

Since that time, Reid has repeatedly vowed he wouldn’t use the nuclear option. “No way,” he said in 2009 when asked if he would invoke it. In 2011, he headed off an effort by junior reformers, Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and liberal veterans like Harkin, and opted for a hand-shake deal instead. At the beginning of this Congress, Reid and McConnell reached another deal to make the chamber more workable after the Nevada Democrat threatened to once again gut the filibuster.

But in February, Reid began thinking about the issue differently, his advisers say. That was when Republicans mounted an unprecedented filibuster to block Chuck Hagel’s nomination as defense secretary. Though he was later confirmed, and Republicans complained that Reid effectively maneuvered them into using the stall tactic, the majority leader had privately changed his mind about the filibuster.

In July, Reid once again renewed his threat to invoke the nuclear option after Republicans blocked several nominees to the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But he was only vowing to change the rules on executive branch nominees.

“We’re not touching judges,” Reid said at the time.

After a meeting of all 100 senators in the Old Senate Chamber, Republicans agreed to confirm those nominees, and Reid dropped his threat.

It seemed that the issue was done for the year until Republicans blocked nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the second most important court in the country, as well as Rep. Mel Watt to head a housing agency. Republicans argued that the D.C. Circuit didn’t need any more judges since the court was able to handle its workload.

On Oct. 31, once Republicans filibustered Patricia Millett to serve on the D.C. Circuit, Reid began to whip his colleagues to back a rules change.

The timing also worked in Reid’s favor. Senators were headed for a two-week recess, allowing some of the tensions to cool, and Democrats have been eager to change the subject away from the botched Obamacare rollout.

He called senators like Chris Coons of Delaware last week to see if they were on board.

“He was clearly marching toward this,” Coons said.

Asked about his changing views on the issue, Reid told reporters Thursday: “I have a right to change how I feel about things.”