OK cr*p, let's get this out in the open... Here is a WP story that does its best to cast Ron Paul and my personal friend Tom Woods as liars. My quick reactions:
(1) I have no problem with ghostwriting. I have ghostwritten things for people and I don't think it is dishonest, generally speaking. I'm sure you could come up with scenarios (like writing somebody's term paper), but especially if you are drawing on a public person's previously promulgated policies (holy alliteration!!), and then let the person read over what you've done before it goes out the door, I think you're going to have a hard time drawing any meaningful line in the sand. Nobody objects to politicians using speechwriters, right? The only thing I could see being a problem, is if the listeners / readers didn't realize the process and would be disheartened to learn the truth. Then, the ghostwriter might be running into moral issues. But from Tom's description, that doesn't seem to be what happened here.
(2) I do think it's counterproductive for Ron Paul to say that they aren't protesting the RNC. I think they should either have said that's what they're doing, or scheduled it for a different week. On the other hand, maybe they did it this way to gain access to all the bored reporters who might migrate away from the hurricane fund raisers down the street. (I.e. maybe they really did want to make it a different week to not look like jerks--just like Paul didn't run on the LP ticket--but they decided they couldn't pass up the huge press access by hosting it nearby.)
(3) Is Woods implying that he worked on Hillary Clinton's book? If so, then I have problems. Not with her, but with him.