On 3/20/2012 4:37 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

I have a least seen the book in person, picked it up, looked at it and
read some of it. I got enough from it to understand what it is about.
The title should tell you that.
Judging a book by it's cover?

No. Not judging by it's cover. Judging by the title.

Which was written by a disgruntled malcontent who's about to be
disbarred by the State of California.

For what? And why bring it up except to smear the character of the
author. How about you show his book is full of lies. All you are doing
is attacking the messenger. We know why.



What was "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" about, Mr. Title-reader? How
about "Catch-22"?

You're so stupid you think "EVERY" book is explained by its title?
They're not. But many are. If you don't get what Senator for Sale is
about you are an idiot.


You don't understand what senator for
sale means? If I wrote a book Judge for Sale, or Cop for Sale, wouldn't
you know what they would be about?
No,like you I would suspect I knew, but until I read it, I (unlike
you) wouldn't KNOW what it said.

Then you are not very smart.

If he was drunk and had an arrow through his skull, he'd still be
smarter than you.

Everyone is smarter than you are. Especially me.


Come on. Any book with a title like
that is an accusation of someone that can be bought. So cut the
crap, we
know what it means. I've looked the book over. It's about Dole being
for
sale to the highest bidder. You don't believe me? All you have to do is
get the book and read it.
I am not saying it is not. I am saying that YOU don't have the facts
to definitively make the statements that you have made. Neither does
George.

I said I have looked the book over personally.

You read the jacket. Big deal.

That's more than you, right?


To me Senator for sale almost sounds redundant.

Why is that? Have you ever heard of a senator using his office to make
himself rich?

You mean like Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn and Riegle?

Now if I were you I'd say something like, you only heard things about
them. You don't know anything about them. You have no proof they used
their office to get rich. But we all know all those guys probably cashed
in, don't we. But when I say Dole did and was a king at it somehow it's
all different.



We are not on equal footing. I've held the book in my hands and looked
at it over and read what it was about. He hasn't. He also says it's
"****". That's not a claim? It is to me. Then he says it only says Dole
made money but not when. Since the book was written in 1995 doesn't
that
tell you when?
Technically no. Just on the title and pub date, provides insufficient
information about when he made money, if he made money.

Since the book was written in 1995 that means it has to refer to a time
prior to then. Dole was in office from 1969 until 1996. So it clearly is
talking about the time period from 1969 until 1995.

The hatchet-man/"author", Stanley Hilton, was fired by Dole in 1980,
after working for him for less than two years. How does Hilton know what
Dole was doing in 1995?

The same way any author know about the subject he's writing the book
about. They do research. In this case not only did the writer do
research on Dole but he had personal experience with him too. Who better
to write about someone?


In fact the title merely imply's he was for sale, NOT that he was
bought and paid for.

Right, and when you drive down the street and see a car parked there
with a sign on it that says "for sale" that doesn't mean that car is for
sale.

It doesn't mean a sale has happened, you stupid ****.

A car out on the street with a for sale sign on it has been bought at
least once. Don't bother pretending you see new cars on the street with
for sale signs on them. You don't. You see new cars at dealerships. A
car on the street is a used car and it has been sold at least once. You
dummy!

Hawke