Without disagreeing, the question is “what does non-capitulation mean.” What is the target and who defines it.
There is a great book called “Every War Must End,” it’s a thin tome about war but is equally relevant to politics, business, even relationships. It examines how nations will fight wars long past the point where they could ever hope to achieve when they started. How they’d shift their concept of victory to be more and more expansive even as prospects of winning got dimmer. And how both sides eventually collapse worse off all around.
So, yesterday “not capitulate” meant that the Rs added back in healthcare subsides and breaks to the CR. Today, do you also have to add in “and restore the infrastructure funds Vought canceled.” In two days, will you add “also hire back all the Feds you fired?”
I don’t have any faith that there is anyone on team D who is thinking about this in a real way and the other side continues to add costs. If two spouses are quarreling and one is willing to accept “murder the whole family then kill myself” as a potential settlement— that’s a negotiating advantage.