Yup - that's exactly how the NR wants you to respond to their hit piece.
They reached back 20 years and found newsletters that Paul had little to do with after lending his name to a few that were edited and published by others.
He has long since distanced himself from them, but what's done is done and Dr. Paul long ago took full responsibilty for them.
Get some perspective here:
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=51578
It's been old news since long before his campaign began.

That said, isn't it strange that his principled record in congress doesn't reflect any of the trash that's in some of those newsletters?
Maybe that's because it benefited Dr. Paul to vote the way he did - oh wait - that's right, he doesn't take money from lobbyists!
Well maybe it's because ho was biding his time waiting for the right moment to take power by being elected president - of wait that's right - he has consistently voted and spoken against increased power in the Executive branch of gov't.
Well maybe he just wanted to be in Congress to see how much he could influence legislation that would hurt minorities - oh wait - he has consistently spoken out against the war on drugs - a war that has resulted in the incarceration of minorities totally out of proportion to their representation in society.

My last (and unfortunately my most correct) guess:
The National Review just baited another gullible shill for the neoconservative movement...

This puts a somewhat finer point on it:
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822