• With: Judy Miller, Cal Thomas, Jim Pinkerton, Kirsten Powers

    PINKERTON: Is going fine. I think her meeting -- Rice's meeting with the senators went badly, and look, when Susan Collins, who prides herself on being a moderate, comes out thinking worse of you, then you've done a bad job on your presentation. And then finally, speaking of the press actually doing its job, Adam Kredo at a new Website called The Washington Free Beacon reports that Ambassador Rice has potentially millions of dollars in investments in companies linked to Iran, and he rattled off all the list, it was all from her disclosure forms. It kind of makes you wonder how she got confirmed in the first place to a U.N. ambassadorship or why the Romney campaign never seemed to notice any of this, as the issue of Iran and its nuclear weapons was heating up, but I'm sort of thinking now that there might be enough stuff here coming up from an independent voices like The Beacon, that maybe it will get -- it will derail her.

    SCOTT: The media seem to be circling the wagons around her, though, Judy.

    JUDY MILLER, WRITER & FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Oh yes. I mean the -- John McCain as racist theme as Jim says, has really picked up steam and it is being regurgitated not just by MSNBC, but by people on NBC, the Washington Post in an editorial pointed out something astonishing to me, which that of the 90 people who signed the letter objecting to Susan Rice's nomination or potential nomination as secretary of state, 80 of them were male and about half of them came from states that used to have slaves...


    MILLER: ... a hundred years ago, and this was -- when this kind of reasoning gets into the mainstream media, we've got problems.

    SCOTT: This, you know, the accusation directed at Senator McCain in particular, who voted, by the way, to approve Colin Powell as secretary of state and Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state.

    KIRSTEN POWERS, DAILY BEAST COLUMNIST & USA TODAY CONTRIBUTOR: Yes. Yes. Well, you know and it's interesting because you have to remember that John McCain used to be the darling of the left and he's been somebody who's always, you know, he was very front and center on immigration reform, not usually something racists do, and you know, now, suddenly, we're told that this man who's been in the public eye for as long as I've been alive, I feel like, is suddenly a racist and they have no problem saying that, this is just an extremely toxic and dangerous trend that's happening and I think that people should be very concerned that this is now the argument that people make.

    CAL THOMAS, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: We've come a long way, baby, I still remember just before the civil rights movement when racists and misogynists criticized women and African-Americans because they were female and black. Now, you can't...


    THOMAS: ... criticize them. Somebody tell me what the rules are, whatever happened to content of character and not color of skin, I mean everything is flipped, you can't criticize Susan Rice because she's black and female. What are the new rules?

    SCOTT: If you are watching Fox News Channel regularly, you might not know who this guy Toure is or what he said. But we thought we'd play a clip for you from this MSNBC anchor. Here it is.


    TOURE: McCain tried to make her un-nominatable, but made it so Obama would look weak if he doesn't nominate her and will disappoint the left. McCain asserted an inappropriate political cover-up while pursuing an inappropriate political attack. He also gave us the horrible optics of he and Lindsey Graham as old white establishment folks wrongly and repeatedly attacking a much younger black woman moments after an election, in which blacks and women went strongly blue.


    SCOTT: He also claimed that McCain was on a witch hunt and said that he was tarring the ambassador in the press. That's quite a loaded word.

    PINKERTON: So many words that he can say that for some reason I can't say. Look, next time we hear the usual suspects from the Columbia Journalism Review and someone denouncing -- Rush Limbaugh, or whatever, just remember, they were stone cold silent most likely so far at least on all of this race baiting going on, on the Rice-McCain issue.

    SCOTT: What about the real issues? I mean, what are the real issues that the media should be raising here?

    MILLER: Oh, well, you know, this has been an indictment not just of the politicians who make these charges and remember, this is where it started because Congressional Black Caucus representatives made the charge that Senator McCain was racist, but, it's also an indictment of a totally incurious press. I mean, where are most reporters on important questions, issues of fact like what happened in Benghazi, what happened before? Why was there so little security? What did they do? What did they say they did after the fact? We just still don't know.

    THOMAS: And where was President Obama during all of this for seven hours. Yes.

    POWERS: They are probably afraid of being called racist, you know, and that's really, I mean that's what it's turned into, I think, that people, the setup, is if you oppose Susan Rice, you're a racist, it's not that there could be legitimate questions, it's not that senators don't oppose nominees all the time. You know, there's nothing that's been said about her that hasn't been said in spades about John Bolton. So, am I allowed to say that?

    PINKERTON: No. You are a racist.

    MILLER: I think it's -- you're being anti-mustache.

    POWERS: Yeah.


    PINKERTON: Coming up on "News Watch" are the media cheering for a leap off the fiscal cliff?


    BOEHNER: Republicans are committed to continuing to work with the president to come to an agreement to avert the so-called fiscal cliff.

    UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As both sides in Washington try to hammer out an agreement on tax and spending, fiscal cliff in avalanche fears get the full media treatment as the press tried to pin the blame on the GOP. Is it working? Details next on "News Watch."



    OBAMA: Our ultimate goal is an agreement that gets our long-term deficit under control in a way that is fair and balanced. That kind of agreement would be good for our businesses, it'd be good for our economy, it would be good for our children's future and I believe that both parties can agree on a frame work that does that in the coming weeks. In fact, my hope is to get this done before Christmas.

    BOEHNER: So right now, all eyes are on the White House. The country doesn't need a victory lap, it needs leadership. It's time for the president, congressional Democrats to tell the American people what spending cuts they're really willing to make.


    SCOTT: We'd like to thank the president for adopting the Fox News slogan there. As we get closer to this fiscal cliff, both sides seem to be standing their ground, they are talking tough. What about the coverage, Jim?

    PINKERTON: Well, I think that the debate overall this began with Simpson Bowles saying we should sort of have roughly have tax cuts, and tax increases, pardon me, and spending cuts and so the media narrative is still sort of, well, can we get Simpson Bowles through a recalcitrant Republican Congress? And what's changed though, and I think it was really a roll call, Daniel Newhauser (ph) and Marilyn (ph) Shiner, who caught it on Thursday say listen, Simpson and Bowles are really no longer part of the discussion. It's now morphed into the tax increase. Will the Republicans agree to a tax increase? And Democrats sort of lost interest in the spending tax part, and so now, can they -- can the Democrats push a tax increase under the guise of grand compromise on Simpson-Bowles and I think so far, the media with exception of a few reporters hasn't really caught on, although you now, you see Charles Krauthammer and Newt Gingrich and Andrea Tantaros saying wake up, conservatives! You're about to get snookered.

    SCOTT: It does seem that most of the media seem to be pushing Republicans towards accepting tax increases, which, you know, John Boehner said we're up for revenue increases.

    MILLER: Yes, Jon, but as several commentators have pointed out, you know, the Democrats won the election and that means that there are consequences and financial consequences that flow from that, and if the president wants $1 trillion 600 billion worth of new revenue which The Wall Street Journal was one of few newspapers to kind of point out in the editorial, he's entitled to get it or that -- is at least what the Democrats think and therefore, the Republicans are on the defense.

    SCOTT: Worth pointing out, though, that the Republicans still won those, the majority in the House so they won an election, too, and the president, what strikes me as odd, is that president campaigned on this tax increase proposal for the highest, you know, the highest couple of percentage of American taxpayers, that would raise, as I understand it, about $850 billion, but he comes out with this proposal that's twice that so he's doubled down on the tax increase that he wants.

    POWERS: Well, I think the reason is he has -- has the upper hand which I actually think he does have the upper hand, and the reason he has the upper hand is because every poll I've ever seen has said, most people, including Republicans, think we should raise taxes on the wealthy. So, in this -- in that sense, I think that it is being covered accurately. The problem is, will the president's feet be held to the fire in terms of the other part of the revenue cuts, not just revenue raised and the spending cuts, not just revenue raising, so which so far isn't happening and he'll probably get away with kicking the can down the field.

    THOMAS: John, there's a terrific bias by most of the big media in favor of government and I give you this example. When the debate about, whether to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction was being bandied about this week in Washington, The Washington Post had this line, that it would cost the government, the elimination of the mortgage deduction, $100 billion a year. So, it's all about the government, what it costs the government. What about what it costs the taxpayers, the people who make the money to give to these bozos to waste.