A reader writes:

The Wall St. Journal in its news pages points to the “crucial role of Hispanics” in this election? [Democrats Take Control of House By Jackie Calmes And David Rogers November 8, 2006]Can you find me a few where that was the case?

Oh, jeez, that again. If you prodded a Washington political reporter awake from a deep sleep and told him to start typing, his fingers would automatically punch in “the crucial Hispanic swing vote.” He probably has it on a macro.

Compared to the 2002 midterms, the GOP’s Hispanic share of the vote dropped from 38% to 29%, 9 points down, while the GOP’s white share dropped from 58% to 51%, or 7 points down. (Those numbers have changed slightly since my VDARE blog item of last night.) Since the Hispanic vote follows the white vote up and down, just about 20 points shifted toward the Democrats (it’s not a swing vote, it’s a vote that goes with the flow of the white vote), the relative loss for the GOP among Hispanics versus the last midterm was 2 percentage points, which it would be reasonable to attribute to the Fence. Multiply that 2 percentage point relative loss by the approximate 6 percent share of the vote that Hispanics made up in this electorate, and you’ve got an itsy-bitsy number: 0.12%.

In most of your big Hispanic states, California, Texas, Florida, New York, there weren’t too many close major races. Schwarzenegger lost the Hispanic vote almost 2 to 1, but still won overall in a near landslide.

While channel surfing last night, I was heartened to see the headline “Why Stores Are Bringing Christmas Back” on the ten o’clock news. Thalia Patillo at New York’s CW11 (WPIX-TV) covered the story: Wal-Mart, Khol’s and Macy’s are all bringing the word “Christmas” back into their marketing for the Christmas Season.

Why? Not only were stores disturbed by pro-Christmas boycotts last year of stores using only PC terms like “Holidays,” but also they think using the proper vocabulary with help get people into the Christmas spirit and out of Scrooge-like cynicism. In a word: money.

There is still one holdout though, as the technology retailer Best Buy will continue using “Holiday” terminology this year. [Write to Best Buy's investor relations here.]

So Ken Mehlman steps down.

Mehlman Won’t Seek Another Term as Republican Party Chief By Dan Balz W shington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 10, 2006:

Mehlman is leaving his position voluntarily and has not come under any pressure from the White House or state party leaders to vacate his position as a result of Tuesday’s elections.

In any normal American business environment, resignation would be an automatic and expected response to the election catastrophe. Disaster is not rewarded.

Those experienced with the Neoconservative tradition, however, might suspect that Mehlman is simply relinquishing a no-longer-profitable relationship. The RNC job now needs work.

One might also suggest that neoconservative purposes have been served.

This suspicion is intensified by the sudden avalanche of stories about Mehlman being homosexual. VDARE.com is not going to bother linking to these, which anyone with the brains to access Google News can find. The allegation has been long known. The issue a political mind will consider is, why now? Could the Bush White House be miffed? Even bitter?

The more important political question is, is the RNC really going have Michael S. Steele, the recently heavily defeated black Republican Senate candidate in Maryland,succeed Mehlman? (RNC asks Steele to replace Mehlman By Ralph Z. Hallow The Washington Times November 10 2006)

Why not a typical Republican voter? Perhaps that would encourage the others.

The reality is that the current Republican leadership refuses to promote the interests of their key supporters: White men of European heritage, and their families.

No doubt they are hostile to the policies this would entail. But if so, what are they doing in the Republican party?

I’ve written about the Nick Griffin case in England–Griffin is the head of the BNP, one Britain’s Opposition Parties, who has been targeted by the British Government for prosecution on under Britain’s anti-hate speech laws.

He has just been acquitted by a jury, for, as he put it, ”describing Asian criminals as Asian and their white victims as white. That’s not a crime, that’s the truth of the matter.”[Griffin acquitted on race charges by CAROLYN CHURCHILL, Glasgow Herald, November 11 2006 ]

Having failed to convict Griffin of this non-crime under current anti-speech laws , at least two Labour politicians offered to change the laws, presumably to make them worse.

One of the politicians is the Home Secretary, John Reid, (whose office is similar an Attorney General) the other is the Chancellor Of The Exchequer, Gordon Brown, whose main jobs are Increasing Taxes, and Waiting For Tony Blair To Retire.

“Mainstream opinion in this country will be offended by some of the statements that they have heard made,” he said.

“Any preaching of religious or racial hatred will offend mainstream opinion and I think we have got to do whatever we can to root it out, from whatever quarter it comes.

“If that means that we have to look at the laws again, I think we will have to do so.”

John Reid, the Home Secretary, last night said he would “think carefully” about the need for changes to the legislation and consult ministerial colleagues.

However, Mr Reid maintained that defeating the “poisonous politics of race” could only be done by argument, politics and community engagement. [BNP verdict 'may change race laws', by RAYMOND HAINEY, The Scotsman, November 11, 2006 ]

Here’s what Gordon Brown had to say in 1999 about multiculturalism in Britain:

I am here tonight because I passionately believe in a Britain which is multinational, multiracial and multicultural, a Britain which is not bland, uniform or monochrome but a Britain which is rich in colour, celebrates its diversity and indeed gains strength and unity from that diversity.

The Britain I believe in is a Britain where the British values of tolerance, fair play, openness and internationalism can become so powerful and pervasive that we can over time banish discrimination, cast aside prejudice, remove bias and outlaw racial hatred.[13th July 1999 SPEECH BY THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, Gordon Brown AT THE LAUNCH OF THE COMMISSION FOR RACIAL EQUALITY'S LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE REVIEW]

Once again, we see “Diversity vs. Freedom. “ You can either have the “British values” of tolerance, fair play, and openness (he’s badly mistaken in thinking that “internationalism “ is a British value–it’s not even a Swiss value) or you can outlaw racial prejudice. And when that doesn’t work, apparently, you can pass more laws.