I agree that this "Bush-Hitler" analogy is terribly unfair and offensive, to say the least. And then they get angry when their patriotism is questioned!
As far as the greater point of the article is concerned, I have very few friends or family members who voted as I did, for Bush. We basically just agreed, without a lot of fanfare, not to discuss the subject. At work, there's more of a "balance" I think. I'm not really sure because I flatly refused to discuss my preference at all, and I didn't want to hear what other people thought. Rightly or wrongly, I just wanted to keep my advocacy in other places, not in the workplace. There's always enough to argue about there anyway!
In the "old days", husbands and wives wouldn't even discuss their votes with one another. Now, instead of teaching the sanctity of secret ballots, teachers ask kids who they support, and then publicize these lists.
We would be much better off if people respected one-another's privacy about voting.
That group think mentality is very prevalent in the legal community. There are lawyers who are unbelievably arrogant about having a democrat party only worldview.
The good news is that conservative minded lawyers are more able to speak up and discuss at gatherings. The left counts on halting the conversation by "thought crime".
The real interesting conversations happened around homosexual marriage and a lawyer who saw it as leading to more divorce cases. (she never realized that such short term marriages will not yeild money for her practice.)
Now on December 10 we have leftist lawyers who are trying to overturn via Bar Lobbying the prohibition of homosexuals adopting children. The leftists thought the board of governors would roll over and aquiese. They were surprised by the amount of disention that arrose. (the motion was withdrawn until Dec. 10 when the homo-advocates could explain away opposition.)