Of course, not what I said, but what's your point? Pro-labor Democrats never had a strong majority in Congress and never enough to overcome the joint GOP-southernDem filibusters that blocked labor law reform. Today, many of those former conservative southern Dems are now Republicans, but the encouraging thing is that there are competitive Democrats running in those states who are pro-labor.
Forget the blabbing on about trade agreements-- I've pointed out endlessly that large majorities of Dems voted against NAFTA, fast track and a range of other trade deals in the last decade or so. So what's your evidence that Northern Democrats were not pro-labor in the past? They opposed Taft-Hartley and supported labor law reform repeatedly-- it was only GOP-southern filibustered that stopped it's enactment.
So why keep repeating lies and distortions? I swear, listening to George W. Bush and to a lot of LBOers often seems like the same experience-- statements taken out of context to lie and distort.
The basic fact is that we need 60 pro-labor Senators to get labor law reform. Which means that if you care about labor law reform, you should be cheering on the victory of pro-labor southern Democrats as crucial for building toward that margin.
Or do you really think big rallies in Washington, D.C. are intimidating to GOP Senators from Red states?
Nathan Newman