In her Daily Beast column, Powers spoke emotionally about being manipulated by Rep. Weiner into defending him, based on lies:

In short, he was a friend whom I cared for very much, even if I thought he had issues he needed to deal with. It was because of this friendship that I believed him when he told me last week that he had done nothing wrong. In an email to me he wrote: “Why not to call the cops: Personal account, no federal case, we don’t know yet what they got, I didn’t send it, statements on sat, sun, monday, the girl said she doesn’t know me, I don’t know her. The people I follow are all people who ask. We’ve hired a law firm but not to protect me, to put together the team to figure out how we prevent and maybe civil or criminal next steps. We don’t know where this photo came from. We have theories. Until we know for sure we open up legal hornets nest if we say.”

He knew I was going on the show Hannity, where I would use this false information to defend him in front of millions of people. I did, and I regret it.

Her strongest condemnation, though, concerns what she calls Weiner’s “predatory behavior,” calling it “classic sexual harassment.”

“We know only about the women who were responsive to his overtures,” Powers said. “The odds are very high that he struck out with many, and other women were victim to his unsolicited sex talk.”

In fact, this scandal was touched off by what we now know was an unwelcome Twitter message, featuring an underwear-shrouded erection, to Gennette Cordova, a 21 year-old Seattle college student whom Weiner admits did not solicit it. Weiner characterized the tweet as a “joke,” which many women have pointed out is exactly the kind of deluded excuse used by IRL sexual predators like this subway pervert.

Cordova has maintained all along that she never had any inappropriate contact with Rep. Weiner, a fact buttressed by her real-time reaction to the photo.

While elected Democrats have begun to call for Weiner’s resignation, liberal commentators have been quick to point out the lack of such calls by Republicans surrounding scandals involving the likes of David Vitter and John Ensign. They have also pointed out that Weiner’s scandal involved no actual sex, and that Weiner, unlike some of his Republican counterparts, never campaigned as a “family values” candidate. I asked Powers if she found either argument persuasive, what she thought of Weiner’s sex chat, and how she felt about Andrew Breitbart’s involvement in the story.

Tommy Christopher: How do you view Rep. Weiner’s actions, in context with other sex scandals involving the likes of Sens. David Vitter and John Ensign?

Kirsten Powers: What I find distinctive about what happened with Anthony is that it wasn’t an affair, it wasn’t, you know, a one-time event, it was predatory behavior. And it was behavior that was done in his official capacity. He wasn’t doing this as an anonymous person. He was doing this where you have people who saw him on TV or thought he was a good Congressman or whatever going to him and saying, “Oh, you’re such a great fighter for Democrats, Congressman Weiner.” And then he was using that position to, sort of, being predatory on the internet and I can’t remember which woman said it. She said, “I just want to talk politics,” and then it started getting creepy. So he’s using his official division, he’s not doing this, as much as he wants to say it’s in a private capacity, I highly doubt these women would have been talking to him if he wasn’t a Congressman.

“I can tell you as a woman who has received very inappropriate things from people who have more power than me, it’s very intimidating. “

The sending the picture to the girl, to me it’s like sexual harassment. He’s a Congressman, she’s a student. He has tons of power. She looks up to him.

I can tell you as a woman who has received very inappropriate things from people who have more power than me, it’s very intimidating. And you often don’t even tell anybody because you’re so frightened of what this person could potentially do to you. And so, there’s a kind of harassment predatory aspect to this.

TC: The thing I want to know about the discussion of Ensign and Vitter and those guys is, do you think that even belongs in this discussion? Do you think that’s sort of a non-sequitur? Do you have any objection to people bringing it up?

KP: It’s not a non-sequitur in the sense that I brought it up, actually, when I initially said he shouldn’t resign. You know, I think I did after he lied to me, but prior to me understanding how extensively he had lied in the media. So, even though he had lied to me, actually, I was kind of saying, “Whatever, you know, people lie about sex scandals.”

It’s not that Anthony Weiner shouldn’t resign because David Vitter didn’t resign, even though that it’s sort of the conclusion I think, you can draw from it. I did bring up the David Vitter thing, but I brought it up in this context. I don’t want to listen to Republicans preach about this. You know what I mean?

“…liberals are supposed to be the feminists, the ones who stand up, you know, against misogyny, against predatory behavior against women, I mean, feminists used to do that, right?”

But upon more reflection, the point just is, “Shut up, Republicans.” We’re really not interested in listening to you on this stuff. Look at your own people. You know, “get off your high horse.” And that’s what I said on Greta. I said, “Get off your soapbox. David Vitter’s a Senator. Don’t start talking to us about how…” Because we keep hearing from Republicans, “Oh, we police our own party. Oh, we don’t have people like that.” That’s the aspect that I think is what you need to respond to, to bring up David Vitter in that context.

The problem with these kind of arguments is, is that our standard? “You’re not as bad as David Vitter? You’re not as bad as John Ensign?” I mean, that’s our standard? That’s not a standard. That’s juvenile. That’s just the vicious cycle that Washington is in. “Oh, you think we’re bad? Look at them.”

No wonder Americans hate Washington. I don’t cheat on my husband because other people cheat on their husbands. I mean, that’s not, that’s not a justification.

TC: What do you think about the idea that Weiner isn’t as bad as GOP politicians in sex scandals because he doesn’t preach family values?

I think if he had an affair, that actually is a valid argument. But this isn’t about family values. This is about liberals are supposed to be the feminists, the ones who stand up, you know, against misogyny, against predatory behavior against women, I mean, feminists used to do that, right?

When he sent that picture to that girl, it was not consensual. She did not ask for that picture. I don’t understand even how people can’t see that it’s so obviously sexual harassment. It’s not sexual harassment in a legal sense, she’s not working for him, but it is a person of power, and influence, doing something that is hostile to somebody who did not ask for this. It’s just kind of confusing to me. That has nothing to do with family values, and everything to do with what kind of standards do we have for members of Congress or members of the Democratic party in terms of how they treat women? And this seems to me to be kind of what the state of values of liberals are.

“It’s not about women having sex and people find that titillating. It’s about “I’m gonna gag this woman, she’s not going to be able to breathe.””

And then, I also think that I personally found that sex chat that he had to be misogynist. I’ve had liberals tell me, ‘Oh, no, it’s just normal or whatever.’ Common, maybe. But I wouldn’t call it normal.

(Powers is referring to an explicit sex chat with a Las Vegas blackjack dealer.) TC: But people say things in dirty sexts that they would never say or do in real life.

KP: I used to be of that point of view, but the more I’ve read about porn and the brain and the way it operates, it’s very hard to disconnect the two things. Once you start thinking about women that way, it’s not really that surprising that he thought that he could send a picture of his penis to somebody. It’s all kind of intertwined, and…

TC: So do you think the dirty talk, out of context, might not be so bad, but when you fit it together with everything else, is that what aggravates it?

KP: No. I think that any context about gagging a woman with your penis is something that I think is unhelpful to women. And I know that everybody says I’m a prude and… because I’m anti-porn, I’m a prude, and all that kind of stuff. But I’ve seen a lot of research, there are a lot of feminists who feel this way. This is not about the texts, this is just misogynist. This is just, you don’t need, the hardcore porn industry sells this to men.

It’s not about women having sex and people find that titillating. It’s about “I’m gonna gag this woman, she’s not going to be able to breathe.”

That’s what hardcore porn is about. I think that I just have a completely different perspective on it, than a lot of people do, but I really do believe that it’s misogynist. I don’t think, unless you think about women that way, I mean, why would you fantasize about something like that?

Do you want a leader who… I mean, if that was the only thing he did, then should he resign? I guess not. I don’t think he should be reelected. But that’s not the only thing he did. We have a whole pattern here of an attitude towards women that’s extremely troubling. And then, we have the… sociopathic lying. It’s not like your standard kind of… you know, I did an interview this morning with Curtis Sliwa, and he said, ‘Oh, Kirsten, you worked in politics, you know they’re all crazy. How does this compare to that?’

Yeah, exactly. They’re all nuts. But this is so far beyond like what you would expect.

TC: What do you think about Andrew Breitbart‘s role in all of this?

KP: I think that there was a time, a pre-Breitbart stage when he (Rep. Weiner) would have gotten away with it. And I think it’s a very sad commentary on the media that they are very diligent in writing a front-page story about John McCain maybe possibly could have maybe had an affair that he didn’t have, but that John Edwards, they just have no interest in it. Maybe in this situation, it would have just, he could have gotten away with blaming a right-wing conspiracy and everybody would just be on their way, so that’s all the Republican’s fault. So I think it’s just another sad commentary on the media.

Breitbart’s take down of Obama was prompted by questions from host Eric Bolling on whether the President adequately addressed the devastating on Alabama after hundreds of people were killed by tornadoes. Breitbart found that “less than two hours” in Alabama was nowhere near enough, and he attributed the short time to Alabama being a red state that is “not treated seriously by the mainstream media.” Nor would it be, he continued, by a “blue state president for blue state people” who “knows that he can’t win them over so what’s the point of investing any amount of time or effort?”

At least one guest, Bernard Whitman, took grave offense to Breitbart’s comments, calling them “canned talking points” and an “outrageous jaded example of taking someone’s tragedy and trying to manipulate it for their own political advantage.” Bolling gingerly attempted to remind him that Breitbart was still on the air with them, but that did little to stop Whitman’s rage. Breitbart, on his end, didn’t see the problem. “I am using the left and the media’s standard against George W. Bush,” he wryly responded, and later directed back to the original issue, Obama’s Alabama visit, by Bolling, who wondered why he couldn’t spare the time it takes for a round of golf (four hours) to tour Alabama. Whitman, on his end, found an ally in fellow panelist David Webb, who, while giving President Bush the benefit of the doubt in noting that the federal government can’t enter a disaster area without being called in, countered Breitbart’s claims by arguing “this tit-for-tat about bad behavior or bad decision followed by another one is a BS argument.”

The lively debate via Fox Business below:

In New York City, NY1 is the city’s respected local news channel and it’s premiere show, Inside City Hall often gets national politicians as guests. Yet the “Political Rundown,” a wacky weekly segment featuring radio personality Curtis Sliwa and political commentator Gerson Borrero seems like it would be more fitting on a morning zoo radio show than a distinguished political program. Although some of the topics discussed are local to New York, the craziness can be universally enjoyed.

Sliwa, almost seeming drunk at times, frantically shifts costumes between wearing New Year’s eve glasses, heavy winter apparel, a cape, a crown, a wizard hat, and eating a pizza, all in an effort to portray caricatures of Mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg, the head of the sanitation department, incoming New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, and outgoing New York Governor David Paterson. Surprisingly though, moments of serious commentary, like Borrero wanting Bloomberg to resign over his botched snowstorm response, do manage to get in despite Sliwa’s antics.

And in case the clip isn’t weird enough, you also get to enjoy an awkward two minutes of complete silence in the middle when the teleprompter dies. It’s unclear why the host of the show needed a teleprompter when all he basically utters is “Curtis?” to tee up Sliwa’s theatrics. Although the two-minute delay does allow Sliwa time to change into his most elaborate costume yet.

Sliwa’s one moment of seriousness came with his anger over New York City officials taking a public victory lap for their passage of the 9/11 First Responders Bill:

Hey let me remind you, Schumer and the rest of ya, we haven’t even built the World Trade Center back after almost ten years. So you’re patting yourself so hard on the back for the [First Responders Bill] that you had to go for a chiropractic adjustment the next day. Who out of our congressional delegation or Senate was going to vote against it? And they say ‘oh what a great job we did.’ Oopha to all of you.

Strangely at the end of the segment, Sliwa wishes that in 2011 the Spanish-speaking Borrero be sent to cover Major League Baseball’s All-Star game in Phoenix, Arizona so that immigration authorities can pick him up and deport him to Arizona where he belongs. Some might think Sliwa actually belongs in a circus, but he certainly provides some unique entertainment.

Watch the video from NY1‘s Inside City Hall below:

Huckabee was being interviewed by radio host Curtis Sliwa who asked him his thoughts on the debate. Huckabee was firmly on Team Michelle.

“With all due respect to my colleague and friend Sarah Palin, I think she’s misunderstood what Michelle Obama is trying to do. Michelle Obama’s not trying to tell people what to eat or force government’s desires on people. She’s stating the obvious, that we have an obesity crisis in this country. And, ‘If you don’t believe me,’ I always tell people, ‘Walk into any third grade class and look around, and then go back and pick up your school class picture if you’re an adult. Look at that picture and tell me what you see that looks starkly different then what you’ll see in today’s third grade. It will shock you.”

Huckabee isn’t just a Palin’s presidential rival, he also has a personal connection having fought obesity himself. He was diagnosed with diabetes in 2003 which led him to lose more than 100 pounds and become the slim man you see today.

It will be interesting to see if there are any fewer “Michelle Obama is trying to force you to eat different!” comments from folks like Palin or Glenn Beck following this.

It was the usual display of Hispanic pride, respect for the accomplished judge and her mother, and the reshaping of the American Dream.

Then NPR’s Tell Me More host Michel Martin asked what Gerson Borrero had to say.

“You’re a columnist, so I think you probably have a little bit more latitude in what you may say,” Martin said, a hint of irony slipping between her words.

“With all due respect to my esteemed colleagues, both of them…” Borrero said – and launched into one of his famous tirades.

Eighty seconds of ranting ensued, with Borrero calling the networks’ programming “ridiculous,” and denouncing “the suits” who ran them for not caring to “educate, illustrate and inform” Hispanics.

After being stopped by Michel to allow a reply from Univisión’s anchor María Elena Salinas, and Telemundo’s reporter Lori Montenegro, Borrero decided to abandon the conversation.

He felt he wasn’t given the chance to fully express his point of view.

Yet it was probably a good morning for Borrero, who seems to enjoy a good controversy as some enjoy a fine bottle of wine.

The Puerto-Rican-born New Yorker has been picking fights over Hispanic issues for decades, most notably when he lost a radio talk show after suggesting that three Hispanic Congressmen lacked political cojones (one of them was a woman, for whom he preferred the term “ovaries”); and when he resigned to the position of editor in chief of New York’s El Diario over a column on education reform in Cuba signed by Fidel Castro.

These days, Borrero is most recognized for his weekly appearances in NY1′s Inside City Hall, where he confronts Guardian Angels’ Curtis Sliwa, and his “Bajo Fuego” columns in El Diario. He has also recently added a new platform for his commentary with the Borrero Report.

In a conversation with Mediaite’s “Meet The Prensa,” Mr. Borrero addressed his position on the political status of Puerto Rico (“occupied”), his upbringing in the Bronx (“it made me tougher”), Fox News (“drive-by racists”), soap operas (“they make people stupid”), Hispanic radio (“full of Howard Stern wannabes”), and his insult-ridden journalistic style.

It was also the first time he addressed his NPR controversy on Univisión and Telemundo.

“As far as I am concerned, they could go out of business tomorrow,” he quipped.

Interview below:

Meet the Prensa #2: Gerson Borrero from josesimian on Vimeo