John Gibson -- Wurlitzer Prize of the Week for Wingnuttery™

What kind of cretin savages a dead actor by mocking him and disseminating homophobic speech?

This week John Gibson added more droppings to his mound of wingnut ordure.

The passing of 28-year-old Heath Ledger on Tuesday, Jan. 22, gave the screeching vulture of Faux News an opportunity to whittle his beak on the bones of a fictional character -- it's make-believe, John! -- maligning the late actor's role as a gay cowboy in Brokeback Mountain. Yes, America, there are lunatics among us, the kind that deserve a psychiatric evaluation. Instead, ruthless network executives reward them with broadcast careers. One wonders if recruitment personnel at Faux News receive incentives to find the most despicable, slimiest dregs of humanity.

What did John Gibson do? From Think Progress:

Opening his radio show with funeral music yesterday, Fox News host John Gibson callously mocked the death of actor Heath Ledger, calling him a “weirdo” with a “serious drug problem.”

Playing an audio clip of the iconic quote, “I wish I knew how to quit you” from Ledger’s gay romance movie Brokeback Mountain, Gibson disdainfully quipped, “Well, he found out how to quit you.” Laughing, Gibson then played another clip from Brokeback Mountain in which Ledger said, “We’re dead,” followed by [Gibson's] own, mocking “We’re dead” before playing the clip again.

As Gibson's show continued, he discussed events of the week and again derided Ledger by implying that his "suicide" -- an unsubstantiated claim -- was due to a "downturn in the world stock markets." Gibson jabbed at the Clinton-Obama debate saying that watching it may have caused Ledger's death.

Can Gibson act more foolish and behave more heartlessly? Oh, yes, the vulture most certainly can.

[Keep reading...more wingnuttery and video after the jump.]


From tcampbell76, a video of John Gibson on Heath Ledger's death.

What a classless ass! With a puss that could scare the bejesus out of a she-vulture. Maybe that's what got his waddle in a twit... baring his claws, slicing jealously into a handsome lad who had died prematurely.

Dan Abrams of MSNBC (video of Courtney Hazlett, Peter Beinart, and Abrams) read a release from a hate group that stated:

Heath Ledger thought it was great fun defying God Almighty and His plain word ... God hates the sordid, tacky bucket of slime seasoned with vomit known as 'Brokeback Mountain' - and He hates all persons having anything whatsoever to do with it.

The hate group announced plans to picket Ledger's funeral. You know who the wingnut clan was that spewed that pus, doncha? We don't have to tell you. Abrams went on to read other bigoted messages from blogs and message boards excoriating Ledger before airing a clip of Gibson's mockery -- all during the same segment. Bravo, John! Yes, Gibson can cavort with the El Cuckoos of Topeka, where he can roost as a preening turkey vulture, the state bird of Wingnutsylvania.

Beyond his Heath Ledger hissy fit of this week, Gibson had already proved he was a honoree of the worst of wingnuttery:

On the October 10, 2007, broadcast of his radio show, while discussing 14-year-old Asa H. Coon, who, earlier that day, had shot four people at his Cleveland high school before killing himself, Gibson asserted that "because the school is very heavily African-American, I did leap to a conclusion" that "the shooter might have been African-American." ... "I know the shooter was white. I knew it as soon as he shot himself. Hip-hoppers don't do that. They shoot and move on to shoot again." After a commercial break, Gibson repeated his assertion: "All right, it turns out, though, the kid in Cleveland who did the shooting today -- three teachers, three students -- white." Gibson added: "And I could tell right away 'cause he killed himself. Black shooters don't do that; they shoot and move on."

On the September 21, 2007, broadcast of his radio show, while discussing recent events surrounding the so-called Jena Six with the show's executive producer, known on air as "Angry Rich," Gibson asserted that the demonstrators who gathered in Jena, Louisiana, only "wanna fight the white devil." Gibson aired news coverage of the Jena Six protests and challenged protesters' claims that the incidents in Jena are representative of ongoing racism in this country, stating: "[W]hat they're worried about is a mirage of 1950s-style American segregation, racism from the South. They wanna fight the white devil. ... [T]here's no -- can't go fight the black devil. Black devils stalking their streets every night gunning down their own people -- can't go fight that. That would be snitchin'."...

...On the August 3, 2007, edition of Gibson's radio program, Angry Rich claimed Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards "whored his wife's cancer as a fundraising gimmick." He also went on to call him "a fraud" and "a pansy." During the segment, Gibson referred to Edwards as "the Breck Girl," "Silky," and "the biggest fraud running for president." Angry Rich later acknowledged having made "a poor choice of words," but went on to say of Edwards: "That doesn't mean he's not duplicitous, which he is."

You can read more from the foul-mouthed vulture's show at the link.

For his remorseless exploit in picking the bones of Heath Ledger and flapping his homophobic wings, the vulture can swoop down and snatch this week's prize with his grubby claws. Just watch out for Gibson's droppings.

There's more: "John Gibson -- Wurlitzer Prize of the Week for Wingnuttery™" >>

At the end of the day

If only the mainstream press had exhibited the same foresight as Manifesto Joe in reporting the incident with Iran. But, noooooo... they jumped for Bush. Amy Goodman interviewed historian and national security expert Gareth Porter about the Case of the Yapping Lapdogs, the Pentagon, and the Strait of Hormuz.

Speaking of fakery, Faux News' John Gibson kinda implies that Tweety is more sexist than he. What's the difference between a super duper sexist and super shrill misogynist? Tell us in comments.

The election of real Democrats: "Mark Pera goes up against corrupt establishment Democrat Dan Lipinski" in Illinois.

Dday offers more on Pera along with the Maryland match-up between Rep. Al Wynn and challenger Donna Edwards. Go Donna! Plus, another Illinois contest, fighting progressive John Laesch vs. "Rahm Emanuel-backed" Bill Foster.

On the eve of the Michigan primary, Mitt 27%, McCain 22%, and Huck 16%, according to the Detroit Free Press. McClatchy/MSNBC puts Romney at 30%, McCain at 22, and Huck at the bottom of the top three with 17%.

[That's all....No more after the jump.]

There's more: "At the end of the day" >>

Hey John Gibson--Next Time Read The Entire Article Before Popping Off

When Faux News' John Gibson feels the need to take a shot at a "tiny" blog you know the blogosphere has arrived.

Last evening I read an article posted at Raw Story entitled "Fox takes shot at Raw Story over Cheney, 'a blog that not all that many people read'" and wondered what was Raw Story talking about. I read further and discovered that John Gibson of Fox New's "The Big Story" had concluded that "far lefties" are contemplating "extremely radical solutions to the 'Bush problem.'" As support he cited a Michael Roston piece published by Raw Story under the headline "Does America need a vice president?"

"Today, Raw Story — a leftist blog on the Internet that traffics in hating both Bush and Cheney — floated the idea of abolishing the office of vice president. . . . I realize this is a blog that not all that many people read, but this is how ideas get started on the left, and I expect we will see it pop up elsewhere soon."

For me that was a stunner. I had actually read Roston's article. I found it to be an interesting, if dry, civics class examination of whether America needs the Office of the Vice President. The article centers on the comments of two law school professors and provides links and citations.

The first professor Roston cited is Sandy Levinson. A professor at the University of Texas-Austin, Levinson blogs at Balkinization. Levinson recently called the Vice Presidency a "deficiency in our Constitution, for which the most obvious remedy is abolishing an office that for much of our history has been useless (assuming that the office was filled at all, as it has not been for a total of approximately 45 years) and now has emerged as a true menace to the republic, both literally and figuratively." Actually Levinson said a lot more, if you are interested read his entire piece at Balkinization.

Apparently for emphasis, Roston quoted a commenter named Xan,' who blogs at CorrenteWire. "Why not go all the way and just abolish the fucking office? The VP has no assigned duties, we already established that. Idle hands are the Devil’s playground..." Xan uses some profanity, which I am sure pleases younger readers, but doesn't really advance the argument.

Roston quoted the second professor, Joel K. Goldstein, at length. Goldstein is a professor at Saint Louis University and is the author of The Modern American Vice Presidency: The Transformation of a Political Institution. Goldstein provided some much needed background.

"If you had told any Vice President before Walter Mondale [Vice President in Jimmy Carter's administration] that in the year 2007, one of the burning issues people would be talking about is whether the Vice President is too powerful, or is the Vice President really running the country, they would say that would never happen," explained Professor Goldstein.

He went on, "In a historical context, the notion that the Vice President has gotten too powerful is totally bizarre. The office was the butt of jokes to the predecessors of the Jay Lenos and Jon Stewarts for generations."

Basically Goldstein argues that constitutionally all of the Vice President's power is derived from the President. What the President giveth the President can taketh away. There is literally nothing to stop the President from pulling the Vice President's chain. He suggests the expansion of the role of the Vice President under Carter was entirely justified given the complexity of the modern world. He concludes

"To the extent that there are aspects of this vice presidency that people are uncomfortable with right now, one question to add is whether this is a function of a particular president's approach to the office, and his or her leadership style? Is that a function of particular Vice President's approach?" he asked. "And, is it a combination of those two things together?"

While the headline might have been provocative, if Gibson had actually taken time to read the entire RawStory article he would have learned something about the history of the Vice Presidency. That seems to be a problem with right wing pundits, they are so used to reading bullet talking points they don't read entire articles.

There's more: "Hey John Gibson--Next Time Read The Entire Article Before Popping Off" >>