Reid unlikely reformer of Senate filibuster

So now Harry Reid wants to reform the filibuster? And he's promising that, if Democrats keep the Senate in November, he'll do it?

Isn't that like Sheldon Adelson donating to Shelley Berkley's Senate campaign? Like Nancy Pelosi joining the NRA? Like me becoming a teetotaling advocate for healthy living?

Reid has been a fierce advocate for the filibuster in years past, not coincidentally when Democrats have been in the minority party. In 2003, standing up for the rights of the minority, Reid held the floor for nine hours, at one point famously reading from his book, "Searchlight: The Camp That Didn't Fail."

And now he wants reform, as Democrats struggle to muster the 60 votes now required to pass legislation in the Senate on anything more controversial than naming a post office?

Reid admitted on the Senate floor in May that he'd made a mistake in blocking the efforts of Sens. Tom Udall, D-N.M., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., to change the filibuster rule. (Although the rules of the Senate generally continue from session to session, the so-called Constitutional option would allow a simple majority to adopt new rules at the start of a new session of Congress.)

"These two young, fine senators said it was time to change the rules of the Senate and we didn't," Reid said in May. "They were right. The rest of us were wrong -- or most of us, anyway. What a shame."

And Reid hasn't changed his mind since May. Speaking on the Ed Schultz show on MSNBC late last week, Reid said, "They're [Republicans] filibustering and we have to change the rules We can't go on like this anymore I don't want to get rid of the filibuster, but I have to tell you, I want to change the rules and make the filibuster meaningful.

"The filibuster is not part of our Constitution, it came about as a result of us wanting to get legislation passed, and now it's being used to stop legislation from passing."

Asked if President Obama -- assuming he gets re-elected -- would go along with reforms, Reid replied, "you damn betcha."

So what kind of reforms does Reid want? Speaking on KNPR-FM 88.9's show "State of Nevada" recently, Reid said he wanted to do away with the "motion to proceed," essentially a vote to end debate and take up the matter at hand. The motion to proceed requires 60 votes, a tough hurdle in a divided Congress.

"We should not have a motion to proceed," Reid said on the program. "We should just get rid of it. It's only a dilatory tactic, and we need to get ride of that."

Any senator or group of senators could still filibuster a bill, but to do so, they'd actually have to speak and hold the floor, the way it was portrayed in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." Who knows? Maybe Reid would lend them his book?

Of course, the issue can't be divorced from politics. A Reid spokesman said in reply to a reporter's question that Reid would still favor filibuster reform if Democrats lose the majority in November, although in that event, Democrats would be powerless to control the agenda.

And there will no doubt be many who simply assume Reid's making the promise to help Democrats get elected, and will ignore it thereafter.

But the fact is, the gridlock that has hobbled the Senate is largely due to the "motion to proceed," which instead of protecting the rights of the minority is actually standing in the way of passing nearly any piece of legislation. Regardless of his motives, Reid's right about that.

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at 387-5276 or SSebelius@reviewjournal.com.