There have been a couple of diaries and one on the wreck list taking the WSJ at their word and proclaiming that Obama is caving yet again.
I'm not sure if it is reading comprehension or knee jerk syndrome that is the problem, but maybe it would be advisable to take a bit more jaundiced look at what the WSJ actually said.
From Steve Brenen over at Washington Monthly -
DON'T TAKE THIN ARTICLES AT FACE VALUE.... I'm a little surprised at the extent to which folks are overreacting to the Wall Street Journal article on the White House and the debt ceiling. The article is incredibly thin, cites no sources at all, and comes from a Murdoch-owned paper that doesn't exactly deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Here's the lede for the WSJ piece
White House officials have opened the door to a deal with Republicans that would allow the U.S. to increase its ability to borrow, potentially easing worries in financial markets that the country might default on its debt.
Softening the administration's earlier insistence that Congress raise the so-called debt ceiling without conditions, officials now say they won't rule out linking an increase of the borrowing cap with cuts aimed at reducing the deficit -- even though they'd prefer to keep the issues separate.
Now back to Brenen's post:
Through the rest of the piece, the reader gets no additional information of any use. There are no quotes or even blind paraphrases from anyone at any level in the administration. The entire piece seems to be based on some vague comment David Plouffe made on "Meet the Press" -- a detail that isn't shared until the 11th paragraph.
Folks really need to stop and think about why the WSJ would write this article and their agenda before jumping all over it as gospel. And most certainly believing it is fait accompli.