by Mark Silva
Never mind Brad Pitt, or Warren Buffett.
President Barack Obama has found another long-lost cousin: Scott Brown, the Republican state senator from Massachusetts who won the Senate seat long held by the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and cost the president's party a filibuster-proof Senate.
The president and the senator-elect from Massachusetts, who also share time in state Senates on their resumes, are 10th cousins, according to The New England Historic Genealogical Society.
Experts there report that Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Brown's mother, Judith Ann Rugg, both descended from Richard Singletary of Haverhill, Mass.
He died in 1687 at 102.
Obama descends from Richard's eldest son, Jonathan Singletary, who later changed his name to Dunham. Brown descends from Jonathan's brother, Nathaniel Singletary.
Previously, genealogists have established similar common lineages for the president and the oracle of Omaha and the male half of "Brangelina'' -- nine and 10 generations out.
Brown will be sworn into the Senate in February.
He'll surely be inviting his family.
(Photo of Sen.-elect Scott Brown of Massachusetts in the pickup truck that he campaigned in by Robert F. Bukaty / AP. Photo of President Obama at town hall-styled meeting in Tampa this week by Joe Burbank / Orlando Sentinel / MCT)
Comments
Yea E, Yea E
Posted by: Haus | January 29, 2010 10:11 AM
According to this society everyone in the world is related to NObama, they must have had one hellava pot party up there in New England/
Posted by: Paul | January 29, 2010 10:26 AM
After reading this story, my mind is aglow with whirling, transient nodes of thought careening through a cosmic vapor of hope-n-change.
Posted by: Chris | January 29, 2010 11:53 AM
You know what they say about how you cannot pick your family but, that you can pick your friends. I guess it applies here.
Posted by: Crooks_In_DC | January 29, 2010 2:55 PM
I see Scott the best of he gene pool
Posted by: Terry | January 29, 2010 6:06 PM
"I see Scott the best of he gene pool
Posted by: Terry
"
______________________
Wow. . .your metrics are getting lower and lower. Pretty soon, it will become the "no left child behind" metric. Scott will become a Senator. Obama is President- elected by 100 or so million votes. Scott won by a mere 100,000 votes in a State of 6.5 millions. Yet, you compare the two? Scott hasn't accomplish anything. Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize. Yet, Scott has the better gene? Why don't you just admit the truth- you don't like Obama and you like Scott. Yet, you won't say that- because it would show your true colors. Whatever Obama does, it irritates you- so just admit to it that you allergic to him.
Posted by: HmongRodneyKing | January 30, 2010 11:37 AM
RodneyKing,
BO did not win his election by 100 million or so votes. He got 100 million or so votes. Scott and BO won their elections by about the same % spread.
Ask BO what he did to deserve that peace prize - he'll say nothing and I agree with him on that. The Nobel Peace Prize has sort of lost its appeal when they give won to AlGore in science for a powerpoint presentation.
As for BO and Scott, I don't know them personally, but I really don't like BO's policies - which are taking his country down the tubes. I like Scott since he, and the other 40 GOP Senators, have a chance to slow down this train wreck.
Posted by: Terry | January 30, 2010 12:51 PM
"RodneyKing,
BO did not win his election by 100 million or so votes. He got 100 million or so votes. Scott and BO won their elections by about the same % spread.
Ask BO what he did to deserve that peace prize - he'll say nothing and I agree with him on that. The Nobel Peace Prize has sort of lost its appeal when they give won to AlGore in science for a powerpoint presentation.
As for BO and Scott, I don't know them personally, but I really don't like BO's policies - which are taking his country down the tubes. I like Scott since he, and the other 40 GOP Senators, have a chance to slow down this train wreck.
Posted by: Terry
"
1. Correct. He got 100 million votes. That's a lot of vote when the population of America is 300 million or so!
2. Ok, that's good you don't like his policies. In a free country, you are welcome to disagree. The country going down the tube? It was already in the tube. . .why blame him for it?
3. Nobel Peace Prize lost its appeal? Give it to me. . .I'll take the award and money! And, I'll give most of it to charity!
Posted by: HmongRodneyKing | January 30, 2010 1:40 PM
RodneyKing,
His policies are accelerating the decline.
The prize has no meaning - just cash - just a bunch of Scandavian lefties doling out the goodies.
Posted by: Terry | January 30, 2010 5:27 PM