- We may have the clearest evidence of vote fraud coming
out of Connecticut with the re-election of Pro-Israel Joe Lieberman as
an Independent. http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=95480
Now, how exactly did Lieberman win TWO elections and his two opponents
got exactly the SAME number of votes at exactly 448,077 votes each time?!?!
"In Connecticut Ned Lamont (Dem.) lost EXACTLY with THE SAME
number of votes as did Phil Giordano (Rep.) collected in 2000."
Any of you mathematical geniuses want to calculate the odds on that?
It is beyond staggering. It is statistically IMPOSSIBLE and could
not happen twice in one million years, much less twice in 6 years for one
lucky Pro-Israel Jewish Senator. I think this matter needs to be
investigated because it is smoking hot and beyond outrageous.
-
-
- How Lieberman 'Beat' Anti-War Candidate Lamont In Connecticut
-
- From James Morris
-
- AIPAC and NeoCon (War for Israel) Policy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Rf16XjbOUs
ISRAELI SPY RING PROBE WIDENS http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/11/187362.php
-
- Stephen Sniegoski wrote:
-
- Jim,
-
- The Lieberman victory is extremely significant. He now
has great national importance as an "independent" and he retains
his seniority in the Democratic Party. He can blackmail the Democrats to
get what he wants; and the pro-Zionist Senate leadership wants to give
in to him. Obviously, David Duke could not command such power if he were
in Lieberman's position.
-
- Reasons For Victory
-
- Popularity because of Name Recognition Unfortunately,
Lieberman, as an independent, was ahead of Lamont in the polls from the
time he lost the primary to Lamont. Lieberman did get 48 percent of the
primary vote. That was the official reason why Lieberman chose to run.
-
- Zionist Money And Support
-
- Also Lieberman received extensive support from billionaire
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg
-
- http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/
2003328796_joe2 9.html?syndicationfiltered=rss
-
- It is possible that others of Bloomberg's ilk might have
provided substantial financial support for Lieberman.
-
- Weak Candidate
-
- The Republicans ran a weak candidate, as you pointed
out. Exit polls showed Lieberman winning with more than two-thirds of the
Republican vote and one-third of the Democrats. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/nyregion/09conn.html
-
- Seniority And Pork
-
- From the get-go Harry Reid supposedly promised Lieberman
that he would retain his seniority. Lieberman stated he would retain his
seniority. Running the Committee on Homeland Security he can hand out money
to Connecticut big wigs. Lamont would be in an important possible and could
not bring in nearly as much pork. http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/aug/18/ct_sen_courant_says_
dems_might_drop_joe
-
-
- Lamont Got Virtually No Help From The National Democratic
Party
-
- Lamont has received almost no money from the Democratic
Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and only token contributions from
Senate Democrats' political action committees. The only support has been
nominal. http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Campaign/110106_lamont.h
tml
|
