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,

I had no desire to watch Oprah's interview with Harry and Meghan, but this review is too good not to share. 

Do you still think Republicans are serious about governing? 120 Republicans joined a baseless lawsuit to invalidate millions of votes in four states. 120 House GOP members shared incendiary social media content leading up to the Capitol attack on January 6. After Trump's January 6 insurrection, 121 Republicans voted against certifying Biden's victory in the freest and fairest election in our history. Eleven Republican Senators, led by Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Ted Cruz (R-TX), vowed to oppose certification of the 2020 election. After the insurrection, eight Republican Senators voted against certification. Only ten Republicans (out of 211) voted to impeach Trump for his role in inciting the insurrection. Only seven Republican Senators voted to convict him. Imagine who might be sitting in the Oval Office today, despite losing by seven million votes, if Republicans had controlled Congress when the votes were certified.

This is not how the loyal opposition in a functioning democracy behaves. Do you think that Republicans will use the filibuster for anything other than obstructing progress and blocking the will of the American people? If you think you've heard a good argument for retaining the filibuster, you owe it to yourself to read this.

We cannot pretend that both parties are the same when they are not, and we should not duck the conversation because of "partisanship." Republicans are doing all they can to take away our right to vote. The Republican Chair of Arizona's Government and Elections Committee said last week that "we don't mind putting security measures in that won't let everybody vote -- but everybody shouldn't be voting." That thinking is straight out of Jim Crow, and it's happening throughout the country.

This is not what people want to hear. It sounds partisan, and even though elections are by definition partisan, we don't like to acknowledge the importance of party because we like to think that we think for ourselves. We certainly don't want to hear that one party has gone off the rails because that means we have to vote for the other party, and we are not comfortable with that--we've been trained so long to see "both sides" that we forget that seeing both sides does not mean that we must grant both sides legitimacy.

We cannot ignore the critical importance of party in our government. The party in power controls the agenda regardless of what its outliers might want, and party is the best predictor of how a member will vote on any issue. The party a candidate chooses to affiliate with should be the #1 issue we vote on.

As E.J. Dionne Jr. explains, "our fight should not be against partisanship. It should be in favor of rehabilitating the vibrant and honest partisanship on which democracy depends."

It's awfully convenient that the party I'm claiming is the only party that adheres to democratic values happens to be the party whose policies I support. It's harder for those who have to prioritize, who have to decide whether they value specific policies more than fundamental American values--they have a tremendous incentive to resolve their cognitive dissonance by rationalizing GOP behavior away.

But the facts speak for themselves. January 6 happened. The votes happened. Voter suppression efforts are real. If the Democrats did what Republicans are doing, then the Democratic Party would not be the Democratic Party that I support any more than the Democratic Party of the 1860s would have been the Democratic Party that I supported. Abraham Lincoln to Donald Trump. Has any political party in any country descended that far? If Democrats let Republicans filibuster the For the People Act, our democracy might not recover.

Biden's position on Iran is clear. Nearly every day, the administration says the same thing at State Department press briefings, yet nearly every day, questions are raised, letters are circulated in Congress, and resolutions are introduced, as if the administration's plans for preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons (the prime objective) and countering Iran's other nefarious activities (a vital but secondary objective) are shrouded in mystery.

Last week, Secretary of State Tony Blinken was grilled for four hours by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Commit this to memory: the U.S. will not make concessions to Iran to secure a meeting nor will it roll back sanctions until Iran is either in compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal or on a path to full compliance, nor will the administration release funds to Iran until Iran is back in compliance with the JCPOA. In other words, "compliance for compliance."

Blinken said that while the administration would seek to extend some of the sunset clauses, the key provisions do not expire until 2030 (some, including a ban on Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, never expire).

(Regarding resumption of aid to the Palestinians, Blinken noted that “President Biden was actually in Israel about a mile and a half from Taylor Force when he was murdered, and he spoke out about that immediately and has been a forceful advocate for doing justice by Taylor Force and making sure that we are making good on the obligations that we have under the Taylor Force Act.")

If you are confused by the swirl of letters signed by members of Congress on Iran, you're not alone: so are some members of Congress, who are now seeing some of the letters they signed spun for purposes they did not intend. Read Rep. Brad Sherman's (D-CA) statement of clarification.

The illusion that Trump was good for Israel was fostered for the mutual political benefit of Trump and Netanyahu. It's understandable that some Americans and Israelis fell for it. But shame on those who knew better and played along; it was obvious to those who paid attention and it is even clearer in retrospect.

Trump repeatedly disagreed with Netanyahu over several matters of strategic importance for Israel but both governments chose to conceal these differences. Ofer Zalzberg explains how that could have major repercussions for Israel in the long-term.

Last week's newsletter.

ICYMI. Let the free market decide. Except when...

Tweet of the Week. Remembering Douglas Adams.

Video Clip of the Week. Now this happens on Zoom every day.

Upcoming Events. Join us for a conversation with Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL) and Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-PA) on Monday, March 15 at 6:00pm CT hosted by Politics with Dana and Steve and Democratic Jewish Outreach of Pennsylvania. The event is free, but RSVP is required.

Follow Politics with Dana and Steve on Facebook.

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.