"I want the people to know that they still have two out of three branches of the government working for them, and that ain't bad."

In my home state of Utah, we have been represented for a long time by Jim Matheson. He distinguishes himself from Utah's other representatives by not being crazy or stupid. He also has a pretty good record of supporting Utah and since he's been reelected like a million times, it's pretty clear that he's kept his constituents happy as well. (In the interest of full disclosure, I am a big fan but have never voted for him. Or against him. I don't live in his district.)

This year, he is once again facing reelection and his opponent is once again, an irrational moron. He's being opposed by a former state legislator whose name is also a euphemism for pooping: Morgan Philpot.

I can usually entertain myself pretty well during the election season by looking at the websites of the candidates opposing my preferred candidates and attacking their inconsistent and unworkable arguments, which they usually have in spades. But this year is different. I'm not that interested in attacking Rob Bishop because as long he keeps using campaign signs that only say "Bishop" in big letters, he's going to get elected. That, and he's seriously stupid. It wouldn't be sporting.

Another option is Jason Chaffetz, but even though I disagree with almost every word that comes out of his stupid, BYU-football, self-important, retarded, ugly, stupid, stupid mouth, I feel like I'm just yelling at a wall when I try to point out his stupidity. The people who like him do so not because of how effective he may be at representing their beliefs or the strength of his arguments, but rather because he spews the rhetoric they want to hear. They don't even care that he was completely owned by Stephen Colbert. That's why he'll remain an outsider and pariah in congress, at least until he unseats our resident closeted-homosexual, Orrin Hatch. Screw him, too.

I could talk about Mike Lee, but I just don't care. He's another Tea Party hack and they're all just crazy. It's like trying to debate a homeless person about the merits of cap and trade, but all you get back are conversations he has with the invisible person he hates. I'd rather just sit back and enjoy the show.

Which brings me back to Philpot. I would love to disagree with him and pick apart his beliefs because the doofus is just asking for it. (By the way, "doofus" was not in the dictionary, but "doodahs" was.) The problem is, I can't for the life of me figure out what he actually believes. He's got a bunch of generic "policy statements" on his website, but they don't really get into any substance. I could point out that his statements about immigration don't really meet the issue, or that his generic statement about gun ownership is the same claptrap every Republican uses, but where's the fun in that? It's just the same old rhetoric, from a new, somewhat empty-looking wannabe. (Seriously.)

So, rather than go through the same exercise again, I'll just post the results of my Google search when I went looking for something, anything to say:


That's right, when I searched for "morgan philpot idiot", the first result was that Sarah Palin endorsed him.

I rest my case.

[Editor's note: I changed the title of this post because I later realized that I had previously used it. Besides, I've been looking to use this one for quite some time.]