RUSH: This morning on The Daily Rundown on MSNBC, Jonathan Martin, who wrote that piece intimating what I didn’t say meant. “Limbaugh didn’t say it, but clearly…” da-da-da. He sent me an e-mail yesterday asking, “Okay, who’s the most important conservative in Florida voting for?” I wouldn’t tell him, so he attempted to translate what I didn’t say. He was on MSNBC this morning, had a discussion about the Florida primary and said…

MARTIN: I think the other reason why north Florida is going to be fascinating to watch tonight is because it’s going to give us a sense of what’s ahead in March, when this primary does move to the deep south states. As you know, Chuck, a lot of those counties in the Panhandle, in north Florida, the “cracker counties” more resemble Georgia and Alabama than they do Florida. So, it’s going to be interesting to see if Romney can really show some signs of strength in and around places like Pensacola, Panama City, Tallahassee and Jacksonville.

RUSH: Okay, “cracker counties.” Now, I remember a guy named George Allen who the Washington Post ran out of politics because he called a provocateur from the enemy camp at a press conference “Macaca,” which, if you go to the Oxford English dictionary you cannot find Macaca. It ain’t there. Nobody knows what it means, so it was free to be defined by the left, and they defined it as a racial slur, and George Allen was histoire. But “cracker” is in the Oxford English dictionary, and the way it’s defined is this: “A contemptuous name given in southern States of N. America to the poor whites; whence, familiarly, to the native whites of Georgia and Florida.”

Jonathan Martin just wanted to know how I, the most important cracker, the big cracker on the right, was gonna vote. No, I know I’m not a cracker. Now, cracker probably doesn’t have anything to do with race, and, in fact, on this program, we’ve had a lot of Floridians call when the name came up and say they were proud to be crackers. But even though it probably doesn’t have anything to do with race, it is connoted with race. There are people who think that, when you use the word, because black people do. Louis Farrakhan, Calypso Louie, in one of his commercials that ran on this program, referred to our staff announcer as a white cracker, Johnny Donovan. He said, (doing impression) “Don’t listen to that white cracker, Johnny Donovan. Order from me.” It was around the Million Man March, and Calypso Louie bought a commercial on the program. Here it is.

(playing of spoof)

RUSH: So you see, ladies and gentlemen, that context and the Oxford English dictionary does say that cracker probably goes back to being a liar. Cracker is a liar. And so Calypso Louie would know this, “Don’t listen to some white cracker named Johnny.” So, anyway, there’s Jonathan Martin, he’s called white voters in north Florida crackers. Now, I will tell you, if in any way crackers had anything to do with black people, you think Juan Williams would be sitting for it? Juan Williams would stand for it? A conservative who used that word to describe voters would have hell to pay. The Drive-By Media would be all over a conservative. If it was a reporter, a candidate, or whatever, who referred to any voters as crackers, don’t you know it.

Now, the people in the Panhandle have another name, and they’re far more proud of that name than they are of cracker. It’s called Redneck Riviera. They love it up there. They love the Redneck Riviera. Pensacola over to Mobile, Alabama, Gulf Shores, that region is the Redneck Riviera, and they much prefer that to cracker, although some people who are crackers like being called crackers, but not everybody who’s a cracker likes being called a cracker. Some people are proud of it, some of them aren’t. But I’m just telling you, you let a journalist use that name or a conservative journalist use that, and there is gonna be hell to pay. George Allen, Macaca, nobody knows what it is.

Now, which takes me to Juan Williams. Juan Williams had a piece yesterday, and I had it in the stack yesterday, just didn’t get to it. “Racial Code Words Obscure Real Issues.” Wait till you hear this. Juan Williams writing in TheHill.com, who wouldn’t have a job right now if it weren’t for the white guy conservative who runs Fox News, because the white liberals at NPR fired him. (interruption) Was there anything racial about that? Can I be accused of anything racial? ‘Cause all the power people involved in that example are white. Okay, I’m just checking what I’m in for later. You think coast is clear? That doesn’t matter. (laughing)

Here’s Juan Williams’ piece. “Two weeks ago at the Fox News/Wall Street Journal debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., I asked each GOP presidential candidate some pointed questions about the racial politics that will play a big role in the presidential campaign.
“Race is always a trigger in politics, but now a third of the nation are people of color — and their numbers are growing. With those minorities solidly in the Democratic camp and behind the first black president, the scene is set for a bonanza of racial politics. The language of GOP racial politics is heavy on euphemisms that allow the speaker to deny any responsibility for the racial content of his message. The code words in this game are ‘entitlement society’ — as used by Mitt Romney.” That’s a code word for racism. “‘Poor work ethic’ and ‘food stamp president’ — as used by Newt Gingrich.” Code words for racism, according to Juan Williams.

“References to a lack of respect for the ‘Founding Fathers’ and the ‘Constitution’ also make certain ears perk up by demonizing anyone supposedly threatening core ‘old-fashioned American values.'” So Juan Williams is writing here that, if you use the term Founding Fathers and Constitution in a way he disapproves of, then it is racial code language. Constitution, Founding Fathers, and old-fashioned American values, racial code words.

“The code also extends to attacks on legal immigrants, always carefully lumped in with illegal immigrants, as people seeking ‘amnesty’ and taking jobs from Americans.” That is racist as well. “But the code sometimes breaks down. Last week a passionate Republican told GOP candidate Rick Santorum: ‘I never refer to Obama as President Obama because legally he is not [president]. He constantly says that our Constitution is passe and he ignores it. Â… He is an avowed Muslim and my question is, why isnÂ’t something being done to get him out of government? He has no legal right to be calling himself president.’

“Santorum did not blink. The man who recently said he meant ‘blah people’ — when the world heard him say ‘black people’ — as he spoke about parasitic Americans who get better lives by taking ‘somebody elseÂ’s money,’ did not correct the assault on the truth. Instead he agreed that Obama is attacking the Constitution and said: ‘Well, look, IÂ’m trying my best to get him out of office.’ Santorum did not follow Sen. John McCainÂ’s example in 2008 when a Republican called Obama an ‘Arab.’ McCain responded that, while he had policy differences with Obama, he is a ‘decent, family man [and] citizen.’

“At the Myrtle Beach debate the question I asked Rick Perry was about the GOP push for a new voter identification law in South Carolina, a state with a history of denying black people the right to vote. I asked Romney about his vocal opposition to parts of the DREAM Act, which would give the children of illegal immigrants an earned pathway to citizenship. I asked Ron Paul about the racial disparity in our legal system with respect to enforcement of drug laws.
But the question that caused the most controversy was the one I posed to Gingrich.

“The former Speaker has declared that black people should demand jobs instead of food stamps. And he has proposed having poor students work as janitors in their high schools. Regardless of how they were intended, poor people and minorities sense that with those comments Gingrich is winking — some call it ‘dog whistling’ — at certain white audiences by intimating that black people are lazy, happy to live off the government and lacking any intellect.”

Can you believe this? That’s not why people reacted to what Gingrich said. People didn’t react to what Gingrich said in any racial sense whatsoever, as I have exhaustively explained on this program. What people were doing when they reacted to Gingrich was reacting to an ideology. Gingrich was simply saying he wanted the best for these people. He was talking about a start in life. He was talking about a way in which they can learn the concept of working and being paid for it. That’s born of love for people. There was nothing insulting about what Gingrich said. You have to want to be insulted to hear it that way. You have to be looking for racism to see it that way. You have to be focused on that in order to be able to charge that. That’s why this is just out of control and absurd.

So this piece from Juan Williams is really an attempt to get people to shut up and stop talking. It’s a form of political correctness in the sense that it is an effort to get people to stop saying things which are effective. Can you believe, ladies and gentlemen, that referring to our “entitlement society” is rooted in racism? That talk about a “poor work ethic” is rooted in racism? “Food stamp president” is rooted in racism? No. It’s rooted in a total disgust for what is being done to people, destroying their ability to be self-reliant. The country wasn’t made great by any of these things. And certainly when you have to dig down so deep to say that references to the Founding Fathers can be “racial code words,” that’s pretty desperate.