CAFTA passed because Georgie and his friends wanted it to. It would have found a way to pass whether it had been voted in or not.
But that's beside the point.
Someone on Atrios the other day suggested that we should just start calling all such -AFTA agreements "the SHAFTA". It reminded me of the Daily Show a couple of days ago where they talked about the origin of the phrase "Borking" and how you also don't want to get "Pfükked" (named for an 1880s judicial nominee) or "get the Shaft" (named for Frederick Shaft, a 1920s nominee) and you really don't want to want the same fate as Hiram P. Reameduptheass.
Anyway, back to this CAFTA business.
Seems that the bill had solid opposition on both sides of the aisle. Representative Jones (R, NC) called the bill "NAFTA's ugly cousin," which is kinda like saying "Caligula's crazy half-brother." But like most trade agreements, there is the school of long-term and the school of short-term. The free-traders, of course, have always lived in a supply-sider's utopian world of "someday," in which all iniquities in pay and standard of living are eliminated in a sort of economic entropy. To them, CAFTA is a step in that direction. In the short-term, however, CAFTA is going to make things unpleasant for a lot of people, and not just in Central America. It will evaporate even more manufacturing jobs within the U.S. borders and will increase the number of people in Central America who work for poverty-level wages. However, as the New York Times states, the actual trade volume out of the areas affected by CAFTA is only about that of New Jersey. So I have to wonder why Bush lobbied so hard for it.
Maybe he thinks it will lower prices on Columbian Booger Sugar.
At any rate, such agreements are really just the floundering of an end-stage global superpower, since China will soon pwn us all.