Earlier today we posited that Congressional Republicans held a losing political hand when it came to a showdown over the $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts -- aka the sequester -- set to automatically kick in on March 1.

House Speaker John Boehner, right, and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

We got a fair number of responses from Republicans who argued with the premise --insisting that under our logic the GOP should simply capitulate to Obama on all matters due to the fact that the president is the more popular figure with the public at the moment.

Tony Fratto, a former Bush Administration spokesman and now a partner at Hamilton Place Strategies, was our most eloquent critic -- arguing that the sequester might be a tactical loss that his party needs to take in order to win in the long run.

Here's Tony's full email response to our post:

"Sometimes 'winning' has to be measured on a sliding scale.  They haven't played their hand well going back to fiscal cliff.  Well, going back to the first debt ceiling fight, actually.  But capitulating on more tax increases is a death sentence for Republican members.


So far they've gotten ZERO for raising taxes once.  So the score says they've extended a [continuing resolution], raised the debt ceiling, AND raised taxes and would have no spending cuts to show for it — except the sequester.  And the President gets to renegotiate the old deal to get more tax increases?


I understand the politics of it: everyone will call the GOP bad names.  But everyone needs to understand if GOP caves here, it's full capitulation — they'll show they can be extorted at any time by the President and his bullhorn.


They may need to 'lose' for now and ask the President: 'Is this how you want to spend your second term? Because we were here before you, and we'll be here long after you're gone.'"


So, who's argument makes more sense to you? The Fix or Fratto?