Steve Benen and Greg Sargent have been making an important point lately that hasn’t yet received the attention it deserves: to the extent that Republicans intend to oppose efforts to hold BP accountable this summer and fall, they are extremely vulnerable politically.

Here’s Benen first, commenting on Republican confusion over just what lengths they should go to in their defense of big oil companies:

It’s no doubt tricky — the GOP has been allied with oil companies for years — and considering the party’s rhetoric of late, I’m not sure Republicans have decided exactly what point(s) they want to emphasize.

…

But politically, it’s worth keeping an eye on a potential trend — if Republicans position themselves as the party looking out for BP and the oil industry’s interests, there may be political consequences.

And here’s Sargent, commenting on John Boehner’s confusion on the issue:

His announcement amounts to a tacit acknowledgment that public rage at BP, and the public’s desire that lawmakers hold the company accountable, have left Republicans little maneuvering room. In other words, the insistence on holding BP fully accountable is, and will continue to be, a very potent political issue for Dems.

I was especially pleased to see Politico — which typically doesn’t make smart observations about political situations in which Republicans are vulnerable — pick up on this dynamic yesterday. . .

I’ve been on the offensive against Senator Graham for the past two days, expressing frustration with his mind-boggling hypocrisy and wholly apparent lack of integrity. I believe his participation in the crafting of climate change legislation was completely disingenuous, and I don’t think he ever actually intended to see it through to completion. His rhetoric throughout the process has been anything but helpful, and it was becoming apparent by mid-March that he was looking for an excuse to bail on the effort, blaming superficial process concerns for his lack of resolve. And as it turned out, that is exactly what happened yesterday. If Democrats have an ounce of sense they’ll never again take anything Senator Graham says at face value.

Now, that doesn’t at all mean that Harry Reid doesn’t share the blame for the Senate’s failure to address the issue this year. Those who blame Senator Reid for his decision to prioritize immigration reform over the climate bill make a number of good points. Senator Reid’s decision does in fact appear to be, as Senator Graham put it, a cynical political ploy designed to shore up his chances to maintain his seat this November. So yes, I think Senator Reid’s decision, which may have been implicitly backed by the Obama administration, was a plainly political move that played no small part in how all of this unfolded.

In addition to brewing fights over offshore drilling revenues and a host of other issues, the conflict over whether or not federal climate legislation should pre-empt the Clean Air Act continues to heat up. As it stands, the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. A variety of Senators, ranging from Rockefeller on the Democratic side, to Murkowski (R – Big Oil) on the Republican side, initiated unsuccessful efforts earlier this year to take this authority away.

As part of the grand compromise being crafted by Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman, rumors have been circulating that this authority will be taken away, effectively weakening the strongest environmental law on the books. As recently as earlier this week Senator Graham indicated that the bill would include such a provision.

Several Senators, including 10 industrial-state Democrats as well as Voinovich (R-OH) have indicated that taking this step to weaken the Clean Air Act is necessary for them to support the bill. These Senators are at odds with most environmentalists, who maintain that EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, while not a perfect tool, should be maintained as a backstop regardless. Both the Sierra Club and 1Sky have made it clear that they will oppose any climate legislation that prevents the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

This is the context for the latest grassroots action campaign initiated by CREDO. Seeking clarity on how Senator Kerry plans to deal with this disagreement, CREDO has generated over 700 phone calls to the Senator, asking where he stands. Here is the relevant part of the script callers are using:

The Clean Air Act should not be compromised, rolled back or used as a bargaining chip as part of any deal to bring energy or climate change legislation to the floor of the Senate. Sen. Kerry has long been an environmental champion but he is putting his legacy at risk.

Will Senator Kerry protect the Clean Air Act authority and fight any effort to roll back the Clean Air Act in congress?

CREDO then asked activists who called to let them know how Senator Kerry’s staff responded. CREDO has provided EnviroKnow with a sampling of how activists reported staff responses to this question. Their responses largely indicated that Senator Kerry will not be compromising the Clean Air Act in order to reach a deal on climate legislation. Here are some highlights:

Staffer says there is “no truth to the rumor” that Kerry is poised to compromise.Asked if Senator Kerry supported the clean air act. Person replied, “He’s doing just that” and hung up.

Claims Sen Kerry is trying to strengthen, not weaken, the Clean Air Act.

His aide said “Sen. Kerry wouldn’t do that!” When I said I didn’t want him to use the CAA as a bargaining chip…

I just spoke to one of Senator Kerry’s aides who flatly denied that Sen. Kerry is trying to compromise the Clean Air Act, indeed, he say the senator is trying to strengthen it.

Man who answered says we’re jumping the gun. Says bill has not been released yet and won’t be until Monday. Says Kerry would never do anything to weaken the Clean Air Act.

Person answering phone claims he will not compromise Clean Air Act.

Staffer said Kerry is a big supporter of the environment and he will absolutely not allow the Clean Air Act to be weakened!

Strong statement Kerry will not under any circumstances consider any suggestion to weaken the Clean Air Act or to limit the EPA’s powers under it.

It seems pretty unequivocal: Senator Kerry is not willing to compromise the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. It should be interesting to see how other Senators react to this when the draft language is released on Monday.

So at this point, less than a week in advance of the rollout of the bill, I’m with those those who see reason to be pessimistic: the math just doesn’t look good. I’ll have more on this in the coming days, but the basic situation is that you lose at least five Democratic votes and only have one reasonably certain Republican vote in Senator Graham. So you need to weaken the bill enough to pick up another four Republicans or so, without losing any additional Democratic votes in the process. Now, horse-trading like this in advance of a big vote is customary in Washington. But on this issue, at this time, I’m beginning to think the much-discussed ‘sweet spot’ might not exist.

Here are just a few of the land mines Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman have to watch out for as they try to cobble together 60 votes:

• A coalition of midwestern Democrats want state laws to be pre-empted as part of the deal, but Senator Boxer is opposed to the idea.
• Senators Landrieu, Graham, Webb, Warner and others want coastal states to receive some of the revenues from expanded offshore drilling, but Senators Dorgan, Rockefeller and Bingaman are strongly opposed to the idea.
• Senator Menendez is openly threatening to vote against the bill due to the expansion of offshore drilling.
• Senator Sanders has a host of other concerns, including state pre-emption and undue support for the nuclear power and coal industries, among others.
• It remains to be seen whether any Senators will draw a line in the sand over the issue, but several grassroots environmental organizations are prepared to pull their support if the legislation takes away the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

It is by no means impossible, and through some combination of giveaways to industry and arm twisting they may just get it done this year, but I don’t believe it will happen. Steven Pearlstein gives it a 50% chance and Senator Begich says 60%, but I’ll go out on a limb here and say that, as of now at least, the chance of passing climate legislation in the Senate and getting it reconciled with the House this year are no more than 25%.

In new polling focused primarily on healthcare, WaPo-ABC asked the following question:

Which political party, the (Democrats) or the (Republicans), do you trust to do a better job handling (ITEM)?

Here are the results:

It looks like despite the tea parties, the stimulus, the media’s obsession with process and the so-called ‘government takeover of health care,’ Democrats are still more trusted than Republicans on seven of eight top issues.

When Democrats pass health care legislation in the next few days, Senator Graham will have a potentially career-defining decision to make. He can take the easy route, the predictable path, by joining Republicans in an orchestrated tantrum and an attempt to completely shut down the government. Or he can do what he knows is right and continue working for clean energy legislation that will create jobs, reduce pollution and improve our national security. We’re going to find out what Senator Graham is made of very soon.

Senator Lindsay Graham’s willingness to work with Senator Kerry on climate change legislation has drawn the ire of many South Carolina Republicans. In November, the Charleston County GOP censured Graham with a climate change denying rant. Days later, the Berkelely County South Carolina GOP considered doing the same thing, before temporarily tabling the measure.

Last night, the Lexington County South Carolina Republican Party joined the fun. The Los Angeles Times Reports . . .

In the last few weeks a diverse group of activist, NGO and labor campaigns have launched to escalate the pressure on the Chamber and its member companies. Here is a brief summary of current efforts:

The Natural Resources Defense Council has been leading the fight. In addition to Pete Altman’s prolific coverage of the story as it develops, they have launched a website — whodoesthechamberrepresent.org — to ask the question: “Who Does the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Really Represent?”

Credo Mobile sent an email to their customers on Thursday with the subject line “Earth to Chamber of Commerce: You’re killing me”:

We can’t let this stand. Help us keep up the momentum and join us in asking every CEO serving on the Chamber of Commerce board to quit the Chamber and renounce its radical stance.

The science is clear. And the Chamber is feeling the heat.

Click here to urge CEOs on the board of the Chamber of Commerce board members quit the Chamber and join the planet.

Kevin Grandia applied pressure directly to Toyota two weeks ago, calling out the company’s inconsistency in a piece at DeSmogBlog:

If Toyota is genuinely committed to sustainability as they say they are, then they can can take their lead from Nike, Exelon and others and stop supporting the US Chamber and their attack on the Obama administration’s clean energy and climate change reforms. If they don’t leave the US Chamber, then we know where their motivations truly lie.

Move On followed up on Grandia’s pressure on Toyota, writing in an email blast to members on Friday:

If Toyota is as “green” as they claim, why are they supporting a massive effort to kill President Obama’s clean energy plans?

Toyota needs to know consumers won’t stand for this. Can you ask Toyota to quit the Chamber of Commerce? If you’ve owned a Toyota, be sure to mention it when you call.

If major companies like Toyota quit the Chamber, members of Congress will be less likely to listen to the Chamber’s lobbyists.

For years, the Chamber of Commerce has pursued a right-wing agenda out of step with the business interests of many of its members. This year, they’ve launched an all-out lobbying blitz to block all of Obama’s goals—from climate to health care to fixing the economy. If the Chamber has less influence in Washington, our country has a real chance for change.

Call on Toyota to quit the Chamber of Commerce:

Toyota
(212) 223-0303

The Service Employees International Union is also running a campaign against the Chamber, petitioning Senators to “Break Up with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce”:

There’s an exodus from the corporate front group over its extreme views. We must use this opportunity to further isolate the U.S. Chamber as an out-of-touch outfit that only serves the interest of a handful of greedy CEOs.

The U.S. Chamber can’t be taken seriously. Your senators need to know this – the corporate front group is in Congress every day, lobbying for its extremist positions. They need to be immediately discredited.

Sign the petition to the Senate now: don’t listen to the extremist U.S. Chamber of Commerce on any issue.

And Brad Johnson at Think Progress has been painstakingly correcting the Chamber’s falsehoods with rapid-response blog items, as they pop up.