Aside from the obvious qualitative differences between your example and
what this piece reveals about Avakian, your retort simply reinforces the
point made above that Avakian’s action “raises questions about using
state government resources to campaign.” Not one of the activities he
lists has any connection to his elective office; since the website and
his e-mail message are dedicated to providing information about BOLI and
for “inspiring” the troops as they perform their work for the agency,
reporting on these activities does not belong here unless he can make a
substantial case that any one of these groups requested information on
BOLI at its event. Can you not realize that it is at least as stupid to do this as it was for Wu to pose for pictures in a tiger suit?

Anyone who bothers to think rather than emote understands that a
newsletter will contain personal opinion. And as we all know, to
liberals, simply putting their votes in perspective constitutes a hit
piece so I have little doubt that Bates was well within ethical bounds.