Parties do not matter to me any more, but they did when I was younger and more idealistic. When it comes to voting in the legislature, it all comes down to a yes or no vote. A man of principle will vote no on everything, like Georgia's Larry McDonald of blessed memory. Lots of people wanted him dead, and they got their way when KAL007 was shot down over Kamchatka.

It's come to the point where I'll vote for a communist if he promises to vote no on anything he does not have the time to read, and that would be every bill.

I don’t believe that presence of SDS deserves to be regarded as benign at any time regardless of the timelines.

That's not what I said. You're lumping Obama in with SDS types, and he simply isn't. (What he is may, in its own way, be much worse.) He's surrounded himself not with SDSers but with the establishment Democrats who populated the Clinton White House and the Kerry campaign. There's no reason that I can see to believe that he'll dump them after the election and fill his Cabinet with SDS types instead.

As for Stockholm Syndrome, in a state like Michigan that’s been devastated by socialism already, there is the possibility that the people you are mentioning are taking cover by identifying with the opressors. They may have even felt pressured to put up those signs, who knows?

You've just given me the laugh of the day, and it's not even 9 A.M. Trust me, the areas of Michigan that I'm talking about are not populated by folks who are likely to give in to "pressure" to put up any campaign signs. In fact, it's quite the opposite: There was a time even in my life when putting up an Obama sign in, say, Baldwin, Michigan, would have meant that you put your family and property in danger.

(For those who know Michigan, I'm speaking of the belt that runs northeast from, say, Newaygo to Roscommon.)

But by the way, the east side of the state will be filled with Obama voters who voted for Reagan. That is, after all, the home of the fabled Reagan Democrats, who already largely reverted to the Democratic Party in 1992 (and even more so in 1996).

Further proof that the Republicans are indeed the Stupid Party. Well at least in Michigan.

No quarrels here. I'm simply noting the phenomenon, not expressing approval of it.

Further proof that the Republicans are indeed the Stupid Party. Well at least in Michigan. Some day "Neither of the Above" will be an option, but sadly not this year -- which is too bad since the major candidates fielded by the Big 2 are the worst ever.

As for Michigan voters I do believe that it’s a case of a mass Stockholm Syndrome.

I'm afraid I'm not following that one at all. But even if you're right, does it make a difference to the point? These are historically overwhelmingly Republican areas (not the east side of the state, which is historically Democratic) that are now evenly split or going for Obama. That means that there are likely many voters there who did vote for Reagan and are now voting for Obama (something you claimed to doubt was possible).