Washington Post feature writer Dan Zak revels in left-wing activism, like his massive opus in the paper (and then a book) on four blood-tossing anti-nuclear protesters. As the temperatures peak, it’s time for Zak to freak . It's "The start of a mad hot American summer in the nation’s capital. A president violating norm after norm. Immigrant children wailing for their mothers. A Supreme Court seat, open like a wound. A midterm election hurtling toward us like an avenging angel, or a killer asteroid."
The Washington Post is joining the liberal chorus of wishful thinkers that Melissa McCarthy’s Sean Spicer impression might damage Spicer and Donald Trump. Post reporter Elahe Izadi – who pitches herself as a stand-up comedian on the side – set out to promote anonymously-sourced stories of Trump unrest over the skit, and find leftist comedians who wished and hoped the NBC comedy show could convince President Trump to resign.
On Friday morning, Fox host Brit Hume tweeted about the John Podesta emails hacked by WikiLeaks: “I never imagined you could do a puff piece about Podesta's emails, but @washingtonpost has done it.” The Post turned to left-wing Style writer Dan Zak to take a light approach. Above a picture of Podesta, the tease was “In the insider’s inbox: Political zingers, recipes, honey-do lists, and UFOs.” Below was the headline: “Well the truth is out there now.”
The Washington Post “Fact Checker” should really be turned on his own newspaper. Post writer Dan Zak penned a nasty-gram trashing the recently deceased Nancy Reagan, with this headline on the front of the Style section. “How Nancy Reagan just said no on HIV/AIDS.” Then there was the online headline: “On drugs, Nancy Reagan just said no. On AIDS, she said nothing.”
Zak implied that somehow Mrs. Reagan lifted no fingers on AIDS – and neither did her president’s entire administration.
The liberal bias of Washington Post Style section writer Dan Zak emerged again at the top of Style on Wednesday. Less that two weeks ago, the Post’s Amber Phillips offered a more balanced and informative take on Sidney Blumenthal, Hillary’s controversial private adviser. Zak could only cite him as a man of “ruthless intelligence” who’s a magnet for “Benghazi inquisitors” and “Hillary nuts.”
Washington Post “reporter” Dan Zak is slinging mud at Donald Trump on the front of Wednesday’s Style section. He’s a bully and he’s “infantile,” and then....Zak went on an extended rant comparing Trump to North Korean communist despots Kim Jong Il and Kim Jong Un. Zak began talking about Trump in the "Spite House" this way:
"Donald John Trump (R-Spite) is like Vito Corleone crossed with an 8-year-old," he wrote. "If you have wronged him, or crossed him, he will throw food at you and then bury you like you wouldn’t believe, understand? The behavior is simultaneously brutish and infantile, which polls nowadays as 'refreshing.'”
On Thursday, Washington Post writer Dan Zak (@MrDanZak) unloaded on Twitter in general as a blabby mess. Zak was praising a satirical-Nixon account at @dick_nixon operated by a New York playwright, and dropped this bomb:
"Most of Twitter, especially around a big event, is nonstop nonsense, the equivalent of a billion babies with a billion rattles."
"Social group whose primary activities include lewdness & intemperance, & whose recruits suffer humiliation & sadism, sues for defamation." That was a tweet from Washington Post "newspaperman" Dan Zak at 7:39 p.m. Monday evening.
The Washington Post is glorifying the man who calls himself “Janet Mock” on the front of the Friday Style section, but it’s a bit puzzling. They noted the recent kerfuffle over Piers Morgan’s CNN show describing Mock as “a boy until 18" as “a ticking time bomb that later exploded on Twitter.”
But wait, Post reporter Dan Zak first wrote, “She had three goals when she was growing up as Charles Mock in Honolulu.” So she grew up as a girl named Charles, apparently. Zak celebrated this “trans woman.” Dan Zak – the smug snarkster who trashed Paul Ryan as a little boy – is now sincerely scolding the “wider world” as “always way behind on trans issues,” as if he were the most sensitive, clued-in reporter on the planet:
Liberals are going to be mad at Dan Zak today. The Washington Post Style section writer who nastily dismissed the Biden-Ryan debate last year as “a man debating a boy” sounded like he went head over heels for Megyn Kelly in a Thursday profile. The Post headline even oozed: “The Essential Megyn Kelly: Her new prime-time show is a swift hit. Buoyed by intelligence and intensity, is she poised to challenge O’Reilly?”
The Post had to pretend that this alleged competition was the controversy since she crushes Piers Morgan and Rachel Maddow in the ratings...combined. “Poor Piers,” she said as she eyed the numbers. Zak was comparing Kelly to classic movie stars:
The Washington Post and reporter Dan Zak returned to bowing before the radical-left “Prophets of Oak Ridge” as their trial began Tuesday. The protesters broke into a nuclear-weapons production facility last July and hammered a wall and vandalized it with human blood. The headline at the top of Wednesday’s Style section was “Protest and protocol vie in anti-nuclear activists’ Tenn. trial.”
Zak began by putting the leftists on the side of “morality and conscience” and the national-security apparatus on the side of “protocol and budgets.” That’s funny, we could have put our nation’s defenders on the side of “morality and conscience,” and these radicals on the side of “vandalism and political exhibitionism” (or just “breaking and entering”):
Washington Post writer Dan Zak penned a "TV Review" of the debates in the A section which bragged "only Vice President Biden acted as though he could sit at the desk in the Oval Office and have his feet touch the ground." In the paper, he began " A pro debated a novice," but on Twitter, Zak previewed he would write "A man debated a boy Thursday night." He also insulted Ryan on Twitter as a pervert/criminal on Law & Order SVU. (See below.)
Zak admired the "firm control" and needling "vigor" of ABC's Martha Raddatz as moderator, but admitted "Fairly or not, she reserved most of her skepticism for Ryan." Even liberals found it obvious: