What? No one's going to offer Wags a "worst of"? I'll bite.
Sandi is a relative newcomer, but her mind-numbingly moronic posts have rocketed her towards the top in her short tenure. She consistently offers us bad information from websites where bad information is the norm, and the fact that she hasn't realized that her sources are the bulk of her problem lands her at #3.
At #2 is Laurence Meade. He's the charlatan of the Daily Page, feigning interest and concern where it's not needed and showing crass, sometimes laughable, ignorance where it is. In the end, Meade is nothing more than a team player, a reliable apologist for inexcusable positions. He'd be #1 if he could be expected to know better.
Ned still tops my list, despite the valiant efforts of Meade. Ned's contributions have shriveled to a mere shadow of his former homophobic, racist and misogynistic self. He apparently considers photoshopped pictures to be informational, and only occasionally offers a few snipes at current events. Tired and predictable, Ned rarely says anything that you couldn't have heard on Rush Limbaugh, but what really cements him into the #1 spot is the sense that he knows better. Whereas Sandi and Meade simply repeat lies, Ned adopts them and makes them his own. It's one thing to be dumb, but it's quite another to be actively engaged in disinformation.
Kudos to Ned, he gets five out of five douches.