A friend, deeply involved in the issue of CAFTA (who can’t be named because of the very senior position this person holds in the labor movement), writes: “just so you have some perspective here: about 100 Dems voted for NAFTA, about 70 on PNTR [Permanent Normal Trading Relations, for China], about 23 on fast track in 2001, and 15 on CAFTA.”

And more: “Several Democrats have lost seats over trade: Tom Sawyer in Ohio, Matt Martinez in Calif (in a primary challenge by Hilda Solis, who has been fabulous on trade). We have told many Democrats–as far as we know, no one has ever lost a seat for being with us on trade, but several have lost for being wrong.”

Yes, it’s great that fewer Democrats are voting for these deals–apparently, many more see through the promises of jobs and prosperity, and the phony “side agreements” or “labor provisions.” But, all the more reason to keep the pressure on.

My friend also points out something I agree with 100 percent: “This could be a great opportunity to go after some vulnerable Republicans, especially in places like Pennsylvania and North Carolina, who had no business voting for CAFTA.
Let’s use this crappy vote to take back the House. Robin Hayes [Republican of North Caroline] is a great starting point. This profile in courage was the deciding wrong vote on fast track in 2001 as well. He has been telling people publicly for months he’d vote no on CAFTA, and he was the one who turned at midnight.”

Yes, agreed (I know, I’ve been critical of labor’s role in electoral politics but, if unions are going to play, I’m for hardball). But, I think what this points to is a need for Democrats to be able to tell the story to voters about why so-called “free trade” is bad for their futures. And in order for that story to have some resonance (and not have Republicans point to pro-CAFTA Democrats), it has to be seen as not politically convenient to target pro-CAFTA Republicans but leave pro-CAFTA Democrats alone–at least from the labor movement’s perspective.