get mad at 10 or be practical? That is the question

Recently I blogged about House Republicans protesting the adjournment before getting a chance to vote on Republican bills to increase the supply of oil. On the Senate side, it appears to be a bipartisan compromise on this issue. In his August 1st press release, Senator Chambliss announced that joined with 4 other Republicans, Ben Nelsen and 4 other Democrats to form and Gang of 10 to come up with a compromised proposal. The bill will:

• increase production for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
• The the consent of the States, increase production in Virgina, the Carolinas, and Georgia.
• decrease tax breaks for companies investing in renewable energy.
• and increase nuclear energy.
  

However; some Republicans don't like this proposal. In Bobby Eberie's "Just Say No to the 'Gang of 10'",
he argues that the bill will increase government control, taxes, and put more barriers against drilling. This lead to Chambliss releasing his response to The Hill. Chambliss argues that the Republicans who oppose the compromise must not have read the proposal.
Currently there is nothing in writing on this proposal. I know because I just called Chambliss office. Since there is nothing in writing, I would like to know what are the opponents complaining about? Wouldn't it be good idea to wait to read the whole proposal until one makes a decision to support or oppose something. Currently the summaries look good to me. I like the idea that energy production would increase as well as more tax credits would be available, but I'll wait until the full proposal to come out before I support or oppose it. Finally keep this in mind, compromise is part of the game.