He was. But note that outrage with the gang of 14 was also immediate.
DeWine discusses the agreement in a speech from the floor of the Senate on June 9, 2005. Generally affirming that the nuclear option is still on the table, and that what constitutes "extraordinary" has been circumscribed by at least the votes on Pryor, Brown and Owen.
Click here -> 109th Congress - Action of June 9, 2005
Navigate to -> 51 . FILIBUSTER AGREEMENT -- (Senate - June 09, 2005)
An interesting snippet from DeWine's comments ...
Now, the article goes on to say--again, Dan Balz's article in the Washington Post--Senator Mark Pryor, [a Democrat and] another member of the group [of 14], concurred, saying that while he hopes the nuclear option is gone for the duration of the 109th Congress, circumstances could bring it back.
Quoting Senator Pryor:
I really think Senator DeWine and Senator Graham have it right.
"He was. But note that outrage with the gang of 14 was also immediate."
--->
Agreed. My point is that these two conservatives were expecting and anticipating the outrage of their conservative base, and in refutation to the continuing mythology that any surprised "outcry by the base", "holding their feet to the fire", and other such tripe, is responsible for what they are saying now. I believe that it was the weekend _before_ the MoU that I first heard Graham informing people he was party to those discussions and why, and clearly that was prior to the conservatives' "pressure", not in response to it.
I said then that I disagreed with them, and I still do. Nevertheless, I also believe it was personal courage and integrity (and fear that stealth RINOs Voiny, Specter, Hagel, etc. would promise Frist a "yea" and instead vote "nay") that led THOSE two in the MoU, not any rejection of their personal committment to conservative principles.
[This is not meant to be applied to the other card-carrying RINOs plus the dangerous "maverick" McLame.]