An attempt to justify the language of the newsletters by Dave Weigel at Slate. I think he comes off poorly there (both Paul and Weigel). Excusing the inexcuasable and while Weigel might have a point that the direct mail language may have been farmed out - how could Paul not know what was going out under his name? And where were the retractions and disapproval of those racist and biased statements concurrent to when they ran.

Had this been one newsletter, you could make a valid argument that this was the work of someone else. But a series of newsletters, all with Paul’s name and signature attached? That strains credulity.