Republicans had a debate about what changes to Obamacare to include in a reconciliation bill—which, because it is immune to filibusters, has a chance of getting to President Obama’s desk. Senators Cruz, Lee, and Rubio, and Heritage Action thought that the House bill undershot the mark and should be revised to repeal as much of Obamacare as possible. I agreed with them, although there were reasonable counterarguments. Senate Republicans have now gone a long way toward the Cruz-Lee-Rubio-Heritage Action position.
Politico has a bizarre story on this debate, a story that claims that Mitch McConnell and the party leadership “boxed in” Cruz, Lee, Rubio, and Heritage and forced them to accept the revised bill. If you had to say that one side of this debate won, it was that of Cruz et al. The latest version of reconciliation is much closer to what they originally wanted than it is to the House’s starting point. That doesn’t mean McConnell lost; it means Republicans figured out a way to work together. Shocking, I know.
Politico also says the reconciliation bill will be “purely symbolic” because Obama will veto it. I don’t mean to pick on Politico, because this kind of language appears everywhere (e.g., “Republicans are going through the Kabuki of passing a doomed bill”), sometimes even from conservatives. When Obama makes a proposal that has zero chance of passing the Republican Congress—something he does pretty much every day—is he also engaged in “Kabuki” and symbolism? No. He is publicizing what he believes in a way that he thinks will advance his goals. That’s not a distraction from the real substance of politics; it’s what that substance looks like, much of the time. And that’s true when Republicans do it too.