I’VE GOT A POST ABOUT RICK SANTORUM’S REMARKS UP OVER AT GLENNREYNOLDS.COM — but what really struck me about his remarks was their near-total incoherence. Yeah, I know, it’s a transcript and most people don’t speak in clean sentences. But still, I read this passage several times:

We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family.

Now what in God’s name does this mean? We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now — what, the state, or the law? — that has sodomy laws — okay, I guess it’s the state, Texas, he’s talking about, since it’s the one with the sodomy law before the Court — and they were there for a purpose — the states? the laws? I guess he means the laws — Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. — Who? The states undermine the basic tenets of our society? No, that can’t be what he means, he thinks Texas is right. The laws? No, he likes those. So what does “they” mean here? Gays? People who commit sodomy? I guess — but they’re not even in the passage.

Am I jumping too hard on this bit of incoherence? Probably. When you read the whole passage, it’s possible to figure out, more or less, where he’s going with this. But I watch politicians on C-SPAN and I’m astounded by how bad most of them are at extemporaneous speaking. You’d think that would be part of their job, but it’s obvious that the system doesn’t select for that sort of skill. I guess that means it’s not important to the job, but I just finished watching a bunch of my law students present papers, and a bunch more do video interviews for our website, and all of them were better than this.

UPDATE: Reader Martin J. Burke emails:

It is painful to listen to him, and to many other office holders, mangle the language. Among the undergraduates that I teach at CUNY, a sizeable minority are immigrants or children of immigrants. I insist that they read, write and speak college-level English. Might we not hold members of the House and Senate to such standards? While the Constitution prohibits religious tests, I don’t see any prohibition for fluency tests.

Those used to be imposed by the voters. I don’t mean to make a big deal out of this, and I don’t really think that politicians should be required to speak college-level English. And everybody stumbles from time to time, and it’s especially hard for politicians, who have to watch every word for PC-ness of various varieties. But this just really caught my attention. Heck, if you quoted those two sentences out of context it would sound like he was saying that sodomy laws undermine the family — and that’s what they’re meant to do!