You're welcome to read for free, but you can chip in for the cost of the newsletter by clicking here and filling in the amount of your choice. You don't need a PayPal account; the link lets you use a credit card. If you have trouble, let me know. Or you can Venmo @Steven-Sheffey (if it asks, last four phone digits are 9479).

Friends,

This year we are still enslaved by COVID. Next year, may we be free of COVID and free once again to celebrate Pesach in person with friends and family.

Who will march for Asian Americans? Good question from Alafair Burke. As we celebrate Pesach next weekend, we must remember that we were once oppressed (and still are, to some extent), and we have an obligation to stand up for others who are oppressed. The ADL reports that white supremacist propaganda surged in 2020, and because words matter, that's bad news for Jews, Blacks, Asians, other minorities, and all decent people of all backgrounds. Do I even have to tell you which political party provides a home to white supremacy?

Do you disagree with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) on some issues? So do I. But from what I understand, he is the only Democrat in West Virginia who could win and hold that Senate seat (Trump carried West Virginia by 40 points). Without Manchin, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is the Majority Leader and the COVID bill would not have even come up for a vote--and if it did, it would have lost.

Manchin is more progressive than any Republican Senator. Manchin voted for the COVID bill, which was not perfect, but contained many progressive measures. No Republican did. Manchin voted for all three articles of impeachment against Trump. No Republican did.

Manchin and some other Democrats seem reluctant to abolish the filibuster, although they might be willing to adopt limited reforms such that S. 1 (voting rights) and other key measures can pass. Nevertheless, if we want to vent our frustrations, instead of silly talk about challenging Manchin in a primary, we should focus on defending vulnerable Senate Democrats up for reelection and turning a few more Senate seats blue. That and holding the House majority must be our priorities.

E.J.Dione writes that the alternative to filibuster reform "is for Republicans to become a more moderate, less monolithic party and to work constructively with Biden on major legislation. The fact that you just chuckled dismissively at that sentence is why filibuster reform is inevitable."

Dr. Colin Kahl is highly qualified. But that hasn't stopped Republicans from launching a smear campaign to jeopardize his nomination for Undersecretary of Defense for Policy. You'd think the GOP would have a modicum of shame and self-awareness after rubber-stamping a slew of unqualified Trump appointees, but you'd be wrong. In response, more than 50 Jewish community leaders and security experts signed a letter supporting Kahl. Three leading Israeli generals also back Kohl's nomination.

We cannot allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. No one disagrees. No one disagrees that Iran's other malign activities are unacceptable. But trying to solve everything at once through a comprehensive deal could leave us with nothing but a nuclear-armed Iran. Some proponents of the all-at-once approach realize this; their real goal is regime change and they'd be fine with no deal, leaving us with no alternative to a nuclear-armed Iran but war.

Others favoring the all-in-one approach are sincere, but can't explain how, if Iran's progress toward nuclear weapons is a pressing concern, we have the time to negotiate a complete change in Iran's conduct when negotiating nuclear weapons alone is time-consuming and complicated.

Letters flying around Congress use the term "comprehensive" ambiguously to attract more signers and create the illusion of bipartisan consensus about the best approach, which for some is everything at once plus free ice cream on Fridays and for others is a sequential approach that would tackle these issues in order of priority.

The best approach is to first bring both sides back into compliance with the JCPOA: no negotiations about changes, no going back to Congress for approval of a different agreement, no extraneous issues, nothing but back to compliance with an agreement Congress previously voted on that verifiably blocks all of Iran's paths to a nuclear weapon. We can get there by matching compliance for compliance until both sides are in full compliance. Once the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran is again off the table for the foreseeable future, we will then be better positioned to negotiate changes to the agreement as well as address Iran's other nefarious activities.

As Jewish Democratic Council of America said last week, “Donald Trump’s precipitous withdrawal from the JCPOA and ‘maximum pressure’ strategy toward Iran led to minimal results other than moving Iran closer to acquiring a nuclear weapon. JDCA supports diplomatic efforts to return Iran to compliance with the JCPOA, followed by further negotiations to address all outstanding issues, which we believe to be in the national security interests of the United States and our allies, including Israel.”

The Arms Control Association argues that "a quick, complete compliance-for-compliance restoration of the JCPOA remains the best option to roll back Iran’s nuclear program, create the time and space for future negotiations on a range of issues, and restore U.S. credibility." The ACA's concern is that if both the U.S. and Iran, each driven by internal politics, insist that the other side make the first move, neither might move, and Iran will continue to progress toward a nuclear weapon.

But "given that the Trump administration triggered this crisis—namely by reimposing sanctions in violation of the deal— and provoked Iran’s violations of the accord, further signaling by the Biden administration of U.S. good faith could promote an environment conducive to coordinating restoration of the nuclear deal."

Should the Biden administration decide to move in that direction, we should support such moves. What matters is that both sides get into full compliance, not which side makes the first move toward compliance. It is in the best interests of the U.S. to return both sides to compliance, and if that requires us to make the first move, so be it.

Pesach is next Sunday and the following Sunday, so maybe one newsletter in between, but not the next two Sundays. Chag Sameach!

Last week's newsletter.

ICYMI. We should cancel the phrase "cancel culture."

Tweet of the Week. Zack Bornstein (read the replies too).

Twitter Thread of the Week. "Judeo-Christian" is a problematic, ahistorical, nonsensical (and yes Islamophobic) phrase.  

Video Clip of the Week. Happy Passover from Curb.

I guess this is a good problem to have: This list is now so large that while many people are local, even more live outside the Chicago area and have no interest in local news. If you want to be on a list that will receive infrequent newsletters about local issues and events, reply to this email and I'll add you.

Did someone forward this newsletter to you? Why not subscribe? It's free! Just click here. 

Donations are welcome (because this costs money to send). If you'd like to chip in, click here and fill in the amount of your choice. You don't need a PayPal account; the link allows you to use a credit card. If you'd rather send a check, please reply and I'll send you mailing information (please do NOT send checks to the P.O. Box). Venmo to @Steven-Sheffey (last four 9479) is fine too.

You’re reading this. So are other influentials. If you want the right people to know about your candidate, cause, or event, reply to this email to discuss your ad.

The Fine Print: This newsletter usually runs on Sunday mornings. If you receive it as an ICYMI on Wednesday it's because you didn't open the one sent on Sunday. Unless stated otherwise, my views do not necessarily reflect the views of any candidates or organizations that I support or am associated with. I reserve the right to change my mind as I learn more. Intelligent, well-informed people may disagree with me; read opposing views and decide for yourself. A link to an article doesn't mean that I agree with everything its author has ever said or that I even agree with everything in the article; it means that the article supports or elaborates on the point I was making. I take pride in accurately reporting the facts on which I base my opinions. Tell me if you spot any inaccuracies, typos, or other mistakes so that I can correct them in the next newsletter (and give you credit if you want it). Advertisements reflect the views of the advertisers, not necessarily of me, and advertisers are solely responsible for the content of their advertisements. I read, value, and encourage replies to my newsletters, but I don't always have time to acknowledge replies or to engage in one-on-one discussion. Don't expect a reply if your message is uncivil or if it's clear from your message that you haven't read the newsletter or clicked on the relevant links. © 2021 Steve Sheffey. All rights reserved.