'I think we're in good shape'

President Biden today declared a "historic" breakthrough with congressional Democrats toward passing his signature Build Back Better agenda. "After months of tough and thoughtful negotiations, I think we have a historic—I know we have a historic economic framework," he said in a speech delivered from the White House. "Any single element of this framework would be viewed as a fundamental change in America. Taken together, they're truly consequential."

• — Biden highlighted many facets of the framework presented by the White House earlier in the day, including hundreds of billions in energy and climate investments, funding two years of free preschool for 3- and 4-year olds, extending the Child Tax Credit, and expanding access to healthcare coverage. The president promised to talk further about the details upon his return next week from a European trip. He departed for Italy shortly after the speech.
•  
• — The speech came hours after Biden ventured to Capitol Hill to rally Democrats, particularly progressives who have seen numerous favored proposals whittled down or fall by the wayside in intraparty negotiations geared in large part toward appeasing moderate Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. Although Biden positioned the framework as essentially a done deal, numerous hurdles remain for Democratic lawmakers who have spent weeks in painstaking negotiations on the massive social spending package.
•  
• — "No one got everything they wanted, including me, but that's what compromise is," Biden said. "I know it's hard. I know how deeply people feel about the things that they fight for. But this framework includes historic investments in our nation and in our people." Rep. Gerry Connolly summed up the subtext behind Biden's remarks succinctly: "'‘Translation: I'm going to Rome. I want to get off that plane and disprove Putin and Xi, who say democracies can't get anything done. I'd like to have something at hand to disprove that.'" Stay tuned. —Politico

MORE: Progressives defy Pelosi, say they'll block infrastructure bill —The Hill

Bump: The real-world danger of lies

"Trump didn't win. Donald Trump lost. Those are words he loathes hearing, so he's done everything in his power to pretend they aren't true. And as a result, his supporters injured scores of police officers at the Capitol, and several gave their lives. As a result, frustrated supporters are wondering out loud when they get to murder the people Trump is saying stole the election. As a result, those musings are greeted not with condemnation but applause. This is not a trajectory on which the death toll doesn't grow." —Philip Bump in The Washington Post

Philip Bump is a national correspondent for The Washington Post.

MORE: Laurie Roberts: 'How many elections are they going to steal before we kill these people?' —The Arizona Republic

Looking for safe spaces in VA

A tight race for governor of Virginia is in its final days, and one of the leading issues is…book banning? A new online ad released by Republican candidate Glenn Youngkin features a Virginia mother who pushed to have Toni Morrison's acclaimed novel "Beloved" banned from her son's AP English curriculum eight years ago, saying the book's graphic scenes triggered—for lack of a better word—her 12th-grader. The effort eventually led to a bill that was passed by the General Assembly, but vetoed by former Gov. Terry McAuliffe, the Democrat running to win back his old job. Now, Youngkin is centering his closing messaging on what he calls "parents' rights"—an umbrella for causes like opposing mask mandates, vaccine requirements, transgender rights, and certain teaching on race. Polling indicates the themes are resonating with Republicans across the nation. Whether it wins Youngkin the governorship remains to be seen. —The New York Times

MORE: Texas House committee to investigate school districts' books on race and sexuality —The Texas Tribune

Wendland & Carman: The many benefits of RCV

"There are several benefits that come with ranked-choice voting. First, being able to rank candidates helps voters better express their opinions. This helps them feel more connected with the election process, increasing feelings of political efficacy and trust in government. … Additionally, RCV should reduce the negativity of political campaigns and make them more civil. Since voters can rank the candidates, the candidates are incentivized to compete for a second- or third-place vote if they are not a voter's first choice. That means they are also incentivized to campaign civilly against their opponents. … RCV should also increase voter turnout. Preferential election systems tend to have higher levels of voter satisfaction than plurality election systems, and the results are viewed more fairly, leading to overall greater trust in the process and perceptions of fairness in the election." —Jay Wendland & Erin Carman in The Buffalo News

Jay Wendland is an associate professor of political science, and Erin Carman an assistant professor of social work, at Daemen College.

MORE: The Democrats' disadvantage —The Economist

Barbara: Brazil vs Bolsonaro

"It was about time someone documented [Brazilian President Jair] Bolsonaro's catastrophic stewardship of the country through the pandemic, and a 1,288-page report does just that. Painstakingly assembled, it details how Mr. Bolsonaro actively helped to spread the virus, no matter the cost to human life. And it recommends that he be charged with nine crimes, including irregular use of public funds, violation of social rights, and, most damningly, crimes against humanity. A product of six months of work by a special Senate committee, the document is a welcome effort to provide Brazilians with the beginnings of accountability." —Vanessa Barbara in The New York Times

Vanessa Barbara is an author and a contributing New York Times opinion writer who focuses on Brazilian politics, culture, and everyday life.

MORE: Brazil Senate recommends charging Bolsonaro with mishandling pandemic —NPR

Focus on Merrick Garland

Attorney General Merrick Garland testified yesterday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, facing hours of questioning on a range of Justice-related topics. The top issue for Republicans on the panel was a DOJ memo issued on Oct. 4 to address increasing threats of violence against school officials, mainly over pandemic-related restrictions and mandates. Republicans blasted the memo as "shameful" and "intimidating," and Sen. Chuck Grassley urged him to revoke it, saying it targets parents expressing concerns about critical race theory or mask mandates that are protected under the 1st Amendment.

• — "I don't believe it's reasonable to read this memo and think it's chilling anyone's rights. It's about threats of violence," Garland responded. "Parents can object to their school boards about curriculum, about the treatment of their children, about school policies. All that is 100% protected by the 1st Amendment, and there is nothing in this memorandum contrary to that. We are only trying to prevent violence against school officials."
•  
• — Garland also was questioned on the Durham investigation into the FBI's Russia probe; the settlement with former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who was fired by the Trump Administration hours before his retirement; the surge of migration at the southern border; voting rights; the FBI's mishandling of the investigation into former U.S. gymnastics team doctor Larry Nassar; and, of course, the investigation of the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
•  
• — Regarding the insurrection, "the investigation is being conducted by the prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office and by the FBI field office. We have not constrained them in any way," Garland said. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse asked him about the money "sloshing around in the background" of Jan. 6. "It's fair to say that all investigative techniques of which you're familiar—and some maybe that you're not familiar with, because they post-date your time—are all being pursued in this manner," the attorney general replied. —USA Today

Gitlin, Isaac & Kristol: In defense of democracy

"Some of us are Democrats and others Republicans. Some identify with the left, some with the right, and some with neither. We have disagreed in the past, and we hope to be able to disagree, productively, for years to come. Because we believe in the pluralism that is at the heart of democracy. But right now we agree on a fundamental point: We need to join together to defend liberal democracy. Because liberal democracy itself is in serious danger. Liberal democracy depends on free and fair elections, respect for the rights of others, the rule of law, a commitment to truth, and tolerance in our public discourse. All of these are now in serious danger." —Todd Gitlin, Jeffrey Isaac & William Kristol in The xxxxxx

Todd Gitlin is a professor of journalism, sociology, and communications at Columbia University. Jeffrey Isaac is the James H. Rudy Professor of Political Science at Indiana University, Bloomington. William Kristol is the editor at large at The xxxxxx and the director of Defending Democracy Together.

MORE: Anti-Trump Republicans target McCarthy, Scalise, other high-profile conservatives —The Hill

The current folks in control of the Republican Party need to understand what is and isn't protected speech under the 1st Amendment.

Last time I checked…

1. Conspiring and advocating violence against government officials is not protected speech. This includes school board members.

2. Conspiring and advocating violence to stop a duly convened government proceeding is not protected speech.

3. Making false and misleading statements that advocate and inspire other people to harm themselves and others is not protected speech. Maybe framing a political argument allows one to proffer up false statements, as Fox declares in its defense of Tucker Carlson, but when those false statements advocate violence, not sure one enjoys those protections any longer.

Not an attorney, but in my opinion, it is high time that those who engage in these types of activities, no matter their political affiliation, are held accountable as any other citizen would be held accountable. —Ken G., Colorado

Donald Trump tried to have the 2020 election overthrown by either having Congress overturn the slate of electors from certain states or having them returned to their respective states, where their state legislators could overturn them. His theory for doing this was based on weaknesses and ambiguities in the Electoral Count Act of 1887. This Act must be revised before the November 2022 elections, because Trump will undoubtedly run for the presidency in 2024, and when he loses, he will try to steal the election in the same manner. But if the Republican Party wins control of the House and Senate in 2022, Trump could easily have enough support to implement his plan. —Charlie S., Ohio

Lee A. from Utah is correct. The "Build Back Better" bill requires a mandate the Democrats don't have. They need to concentrate on the infrastructure bill, and then they need to go to the American people and get a mandate to pass the other bill in the form of a majority in the Senate and a much larger majority in the House. Even if they were to pass the "Build Back Better" bill, the POT (Party-of-Trump) heads would dismantle it if they were to retake Congress. —Dave M., Colorado

The views expressed in "What's Your Take?" are submitted by readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial staff or the Stand Up Republic Foundation.