Is this supposed to be shocking? Have not our politicians been whoring themselves to special interest groups for years? Having a pimp and prostitutes support a politician is like union workers supporting union workers. No shock here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The takeaway here is.. man who runs a completely legal business supports Ron Paul. Nice, Alternet. Maybe next you can write a few articles about Kucinich seeing a UFO. After all, hit pieces seem to be all you have for anyone outside of the media-annointed "frontrunners".. mostly Clinton.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Again, Another smear attack by alternet. They can give it but they cannot take it. What a lie about credit card contributions. They paid back the 10$ total that some theaf tested a stolen credit card on www.ronpaul2008.com . This is a far cry to the 4.3 million legitimate contributions he raised, oh ya I forgot about that racist in Idaho!LOL. Why don't you admit your hate for those you don't agree with? Why are people afraid of Ron Paul? Does the truth hurt that much? That's right you want to plunder the american people (Taxes) and have your cake and eat it too! selfish,selfish,selfish!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is this supposed to be a slam? I'm not sure. It sort of reads like "Nevada man values liberty, supports Ron Paul."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I didn't see this sort of derision aimed at Larry Flynt's endorsement of Kucinich. Please don't tell me that being a pimp is bad, but publishing Hustler is OK because Flynt also exposes GOP hypocrisy.

I'm not going to vote for Ron Paul, but I don't see the point in ALternet's almost daily trashing of the only anti-war and anti-police state candidate in the Republican primaries.

We already have Daily Kos for "There are no good Republicans".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why don't you post something of SUBSTANCE about Ron Paul rather than just "racists support him" a "pimp" supports him and "pimps" for him", "somebody made "illegal" coins with his face on them"?

Oh, yeah.. because you don't want to report on Ron Paul.. you want to report on anyone that supports him that doesn't fall into your guidlines for how people should live in order to attack Ron Paul.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There sure are a lot of Ron Paul supporters here.

Here is my break down of the story.

Ron Paul is a libertarian and as such it makes perfect sense that a man that owns a brothel in the only state that legalizes prostitution would support him. Maybe the owner is hoping that it will be legalized federally on the Libertarian wave Ron Paul brings. Or he just recognizes that is the only candidate that could stick to his principles and support his business (as a concept, not client). It would be nice if all reporting reflected that he is a libertarian and how that plays into his policies.

However, in defense of Alternet, Ron Paul is running in the Republican party which is more defined by Christian Conservatives in the press and much of the public, even if it the actions are more in support of the Country Club Conservatives. As such, the support of a brothel owner is big news, as many of the delegates that will be part of the nominating convention will find such endorsements untasteful.

On the fundraising, the use of stolen credit cards is not that big a story in my mind and should be ignored. However, Ron Paul is using a gimmick and using it well, in having supporters hold off on donations to one specific day. If the campaign has the cash flow to encourage delayed financial contributions to a specific day, and if the media will then provide free coverage of this staged event, then media is stupid, but we already know that.

Combining fundraising and the brothel owner story is a different concern. Ron Paul is not a charity, and as such, contributions need to be documented for FEC requirements. So the employees have to get information on those who donate. Now if they collect the information on those donating/contributing to meet FEC rules, then they will be a new category of bundlers. But make sure there efforts to support a candidate doesn't violate FEC requirements.

As I have said before and I will say again, I don't like Ron Paul, but that is because I am worried about the hyper capitalism that will ensue if he got his de-regulation wish list (I assume, not based on anything I have read, as a libertarian he wants to de-regulate), just think back to the 2001 electricity situation in California.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...because of yet another STUPID RON PAUL BASHING ARTICLE...and I think all of you reading this should unsubscribe as well.

AlterNet should be ashamed of itself for continuing this very stupid attack on a principled conservative. I don't want to be associated with trash like this. The point made above, that a brothel owner would side with a libertarian because libertarian policy aligns with the brothel's business interest, is SELF-EVIDENT. Secondly, trashing a brothel owner for running a business that is legal in the state in which it is run is -- well, inexplicable. Third, there are so many other, truly dangerous candidates on the GOP side (including the folksy "I don't believe in evolution" Huckabee, or the intellectually devoid Tancredo and Hunter) that to spend this kind of venom on Ron Paul, who actually could be an ally on at least two issues -- the war and war profiteering -- is below what I thought the intellectual and journalistic standard of AlterNet to be.

Unfortunately, in recent months the quality of articles has diminished, and space has been given to ideas that could only charitably be called half-baked, as well as this personal vendetta against Ron Paul for some reason. It's not attractive, nor is it entertaining or informative. I think I'm going to re-up my print subscription to the Nation and spend some time offline for a while. At least the Nation has professional editors with a sense of propriety.

I've been defending AlterNet for a couple of years now to friends who have complained about rash attacks like this, assuring them this was the exception rather than the rule. Well, thanks for making ME look stupid.

It is with sadness that I say this, because I first started reading Alternet, and then subscribed, when AlterNet was the only place (other than the aforementioned Nation) to find thorough debunking of W's ridiculous war justifications. Now I find you stooping to the same level as this administration to target a man who isn't even any sort of threat. (Do you guys somehow see his candidacy as the Nader of '08? Do you somehow think he has a snowball's chance of gaining the nomination or the presidency? Why not spend your time discussing the POSITIVE IDEAS embodied in the other Quixotic campaign, Dennis Kucinich?)

But now, I see AlterNet becoming no better than, say, the discussion forums at democraticunderground.com -- a bunch of people who spend more time bitching and attacking "character", or doing horse-race analysis of candidates' campaigns, than providing useful information and discussion. THAT I can get on cable TV.

Shame, shame on you, AlterNet. Get some better editors, and stop allowing this sort of crap to sully your reputation.

Good bye. I hope that many of you join me in unsubscribing as a sign that we WON'T be dragged down to the level of Rush Limbaugh.

I'm sad to see that you feel it's more important to continue to bully a single, frankly unimportant candidate, than to maintain some sort of balance and integrity in your reportage.

Shame on you one last time,
Steve Pasek
Chicago, IL

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

about Paul's opposition to abortion rights and social security. This groups of women depends on access to birth control and abortion services rather heavily, they also don't last long when they get really old.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wouldn't it be more productive for alternet to focus on, or at least give some attention to, the common ground that progressives share with Ron Paul? If Clinton or Obama or Edwards wins next year, are we going to end our occupation in Iraq? Will we dismantle the prison-industrial complex if any of them are elected? Will there be any change in corporate welfare monies being doled out if one of the top tier Dems makes it to the White House?

Unless we want to continue being a target of terrorism, we have to recognize the folly of our imperialist agenda. None of the major Democratic candidates are seriously talking in those terms, but Ron Paul is and I think we owe it to ourselves to listen to his sincere input.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

toward elimination of abortion rights or welfare programs. It is that simple. I agree with him on the war should be ended, but disagree with his views on the constitution.

I prefer a liberal antiwar candidate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is the kind of top tier journalism I have grown to know and respect at the Alternet. Y'all will have to follow it up, of course, with a piece about how the North American Man-Boy Love Association only supports Democrats.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]