It’s Kirchick’s story so he’s obliged to follow up but all it does is play into the apologists’ hands by shifting the question from whether Paul approves of the sentiments in the newsletters published for years under his name to whether he actually composed the text, as though a definitive “no” on the latter point would exculpate him. Even well meaning critics are making this mistake. There’s no way to prove if he did or didn’t unless someone comes forward to take the blame, and even then many of us would suspect he was taking the fall for the cult leader, and even then, who cares? To borrow a slogan from his own core constituency: Paul knew. He had to. And if he didn’t — and remember, a man with congressional ambitions would/should be extra keen to know what’s going out on his letterhead — then to borrow another phrase, he’s unfit to run a Dairy Queen. Let’s keep our eyes on the ball. And hope Chris Wallace keeps his eye on it too.

Here’s the latest dispatch from the rEVOLution. Innocent temporary site glitch or grand Diebold conspiracy to cover up a 30-point blowout victory? 17,000+ views on YouTube and counting.

Update: Which is not to suggest the Paulnuts have a monopoly on paranoia.