And handles it … not-so-well. Weigel analyzes the exchange above, where Paul takes off his mic and ends an interview after being asked repeatedly about his newsletters:
[Paul] has answered some of the questions, but only some — he has never said who wrote the offending stuff, and whether he still associates with the author. I think that's the wound that the press can keep poking. Imagine a less sui generis politician — imagine, say, Mitt Romney being found out for having published internal Bain memos, or something, that indulged in conspiracy theories. The media wouldn't let him off if he just said someone else must have written them.
I'm not sure what he is supposed to say at this point. He's unwilling to out Lew Rockwell and disown him. And the focus on it – rather than, say, his views on Iran or the drug war – is in line with press behavior. This is the "Jeremiah Wright" scandal for Paul. Allahpundit is more blunt:
[H]is answer here tracks perfectly with the reactions I typically see from Paul fans in blog comment threads whenever the newsletters come up. It’s never a matter of “yes, they’re disturbing and absolutely fair game, but we need to elect Paul anyway because we desperately need his fiscal discipline.” Rather, it’s always a case of “Meh, old news. This again?” Good luck in the general election, guys. Exit quotation from Philip Klein: “Ron Paul transparency: Bradley Manning is a hero for leaking classified info, but don’t dare ask who wrote my newsletters!”
For the record, my own position is and has been: yes, this is relevant; yes, it's disturbing; no, it's not disqualifying. And the real debate needs to be about fiscal restraint and global prudence.
The Dish 