When I opened this, my first thought was, "Oh, cool! It's really well written, and it's really well formatted. I bet it's going to be hilarious." Unfortunately, the article runs into some major, major problems with its humor. And here's what they are.
Anger != Funny. There is a whole class of Uncyclopedia article that started when someone read a Wikipedia article called "Senator Joe Blow," wanted to write an article called "Fuck Senator Joe Blow," wasn't allowed to, and decided to write it here. Now, this article isn't quite as bad as a "Fuck Chet Culver" article, but it's close. This article obviously started by cutting-and-pasting in Wikipedia's article and altering it; some of the alterations say "I'm pissed" far more loudly than they say "I'm being funny." For example, the word "Democrats" is replaced by "complete morons." The assertion "Democrats are complete morons" is not a joke. It may be fun to say, but it is not funny. "Constitution Molester"? Same thing. It's angry; it's not funny. Calling a politician a fascist? Absolutely never funny. "Drunk on power?" No. "Terrorist-funded?" Nope.
Biting satire can be funny, but angry screeds are not. There are two tried-and-true ways of satirizing a politician: satirize some parallel-universe version of that politician, like Gilbert and Sullivan when they set the Victorian English government in Feudal Japan, or satirize him in a generally good-natured way, like Parker and Stone in "That's My Bush."
Complete randomness != Funny. A certain kind of randomness can be funny, but complete and total randomness rarely is. And there's a little excessive randomness here. For example, Culver is described as the "Emperor of the U.S. State of Iowa brought to you by Viagra." Why is Iowa brought to me by Viagra??! Is the idea that Viagra is funny just because it has to do with penises? It's not. And what's with all the Cobra Command stuff? It doesn't fit. It's just not right, here.
Very few articles should have gay jokes. Don't get me wrong, in the right context, a gay joke can be hilarious. But this is not that context. And the assertion that "Chet Culver is gay" also violates rule #1 ("Anger != Funny"). Take out the stuff about Chet's father having sex with Cobra Commander. Take out the stuff Chet giving blowjobs at Colgate. None of it is remotely funny.
The fact that this doesn't have a funny concept is really the whole problem with its humor. It needs a better concept than "Fuck Chet Culver; I fucking hate that prick."
Prose and formatting:
Nothing to complain about here. It looks like an encyclopedia article; the prose reads like an encyclopedia article; there are few mistakes. It probably helps that it was started from the actual Wikipedia article.
They're adequate. They look like what you'd see on Wikipedia, and they're in places they might be on Wikipedia. So, I'll give them a 7. But deduct 1 for the low-res blurriness of the first picture; there are far better choices.
Uncyclopedia may need a new core policy: Uncyclopedia:How To Be Funny And Not Just Angry. We read articles here because we want to laugh, not because we want to pound our fists on the table and say "Yeah! Fuck the Iowa legislature!"