Let's use some common sense here. If DeWine and Graham only voted because they were instructed that way by the Whitehouse, that implies they would've voted with Frist. But if they had voted with Frist, then Frist had the votes. Now, if you believe that Graham/DeWine are covering for some other Republican senators who were going to vote against the fillibuster, why sacrifice Graham and DeWine? Why not pick one of the other senators who were going to vote against the rule change anyway?
The Whitehouse story doesn't pass the smell test and fails based on simle logic. I don't know that DeWine or Graham are the source of the bogus story. I suspect that someone likes to do a lot of talking and is passing along silly rumours.
This hits it right on the head. Especially since DeWine is running in 2006. Why choose him as the sacrificial lamb. Why would he agree to be the sacrificial lamb when Specter would do so much better--the conservatives already dislike specter and he's not running for reelection anytime soon. So the story is internally contradictory.
Not if Specter was a "no" vote. The Seven, minus DeWine and Graham, makes 50, minus Specter makes 49. According to the report on Fox, Specter was a solid "uncommitted" -- Frist didn't have even a solid 50. And losing on the nuclear option would have been more devastating that this deal.