The New Willard

Denny Rehberg recently had a little chat with the Flathead Beacon in which he explained his opposition to NAFTA,

One area in which Rehberg did call for change was trade, asserting his opposition to NAFTA, “I would not have voted for it,” adding that he opposed the Central American Free Trade Agreement and a free trade agreement with Australia. A “NAFTA-like trade agreement” is necessary, Rehberg said, but it should give the U.S. greater control when trade violations occur to expedite the movement of goods, particularly if those goods are perishable.

Concerned that heightened security and passport restrictions are impeding trade between the U.S. and Canada, he added that there needs to be “a melding of laws between Canada and ourselves” regarding border crossings.

Honestly, I’m surprised that Rehberg opposes NAFTA, but his reasoning becomes more Rehbergish in the second paragraph: he opposes NAFTA, but supports “a melding of laws between Canada” and the U.S. Does Rehberg know what NAFTA is? Probably not.

Additionally, Rehberg asserts his dicontent with restrictive “security and passport restrictions,” yet initially supported the Real I.D. Act, before he realized Montanans would burn him at the stake for it.

His logic confuses me to the core, but I think he just doesn’t know what he’s saying half the time.