You've got to hand it to presump-tive Republican presidential nominee John McCain: The Arizona senator didn't go for the easy applause lines or deliver them in friendly environs last week when he brought his "It's Time for Action Tour" to Ohio.

Trade was the issue, just as it was when Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama battled to out- anti-NAFTA each other before the Ohio primary, while McCain went to Youngstown to preach a free-trade message to a choir singing the opposite tune.

McCain says trade, worker retraining and education are the ticket for the future. But many of those he spoke to are convinced that pacts like the North American Free Trade Agreement have cost far more good-paying jobs than they ever will bring to the Mahoning Valley.

The latter is a message Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown and other Democrats in Congress will continue to hammer away at this year. A proposed Colombia trade pact already is dead on arrival in the House.

Brown made his pitch last week when The Wall Street Journal, whose editorial page is a bastion of free-trade advocacy, and The Dispatch ran his column outlining the argument against the Colombia deal.

Colombia is held out by trade-deal proponents as America's best democratic ally in a region where Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez beats an anti-American drum. They say Colombia is making big strides under President Alvaro Uribe.

Brown argues that Colombia still treats labor unions unfairly and isn't doing enough to crack down on paramilitary right-wingers who kill trade unionists and commit other human-rights atrocities.

But, Brown wrote, "Let's focus on the merits of the agreement . . . we have a trade agreement that runs nearly 1,000 pages and is chock-full of giveaways and protections for drug companies, oil companies and financial-services companies, and incentives to outsource jobs now held by Americans."

As Brown also notes, Colombia already gets to send its exports into the United States duty-free, though under preferences that have to be regularly renewed. Part of the incentive for Colombia in this trade deal is making those preferences permanent, to encourage more long-term business investment.

It's hard to see how it is a disadvantage to American companies and workers to have a two-way deal where exports will flow into Colombia tariff-free, and encourage the progress in Colombia.

Is the deal simply a giveaway to special interests, as Brown charges? If so, some of those special interests are based in Ohio.

The state's exports are growing every year, according to an Ohio Department of Development report released last month. In 2007, Ohio companies exported more than $42.4 billion worth of products, up from $24.8 billion in 1999.

The state's biggest trading partner by far is Canada, not known for human-rights abuses, anti-worker climate or cheap labor. More than $19.6 billion worth of Ohio goods were sold in Canada in 2007, compared with less than $3 billion in Mexico.

Colombia is an even smaller player, but exports are growing in a big way, up from $73.5 million in 2005 to nearly $133 million last year. You would have to think the trade deal would generate more business for Ohio companies.

The oft-cited statistic is that Ohio has lost 200,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000. Many of the Mahoning Valley's lost jobs occurred well before NAFTA was signed in 1993.

Meanwhile, in 2005, the most recent year available, 308,500 Ohio jobs were related to manufactured exports, according to the Department of Development report.

Brown bridles at being labeled a protectionist. In an interview last week, he said he is a longtime promoter of Ohio exports. But a large U.S. trade deficit means a net loss of jobs, especially in places like Ohio, Brown maintains.

But instead of killing the Colombia deal, Democratic leaders should devise a version that they believe is fairer to American workers.

Yes, the deal was done under fast-track rules that allow Congress to take only an up or down vote. But the House already changed its rules to effectively put the deal on hold without any vote, so why not unilaterally come up with a model, even if just for show, of what Democratic leaders would be willing to pass?

President Bush might not like it. Colombia might not like it. Businesses might not like it. But it would be progress rather than stalemate.

Jonathan Riskind is chief of The Dispatch Washington bureau.

jriskind@dispatch.com