Wow! Big news--Chris

I realize a few diaries have already talked about RedState user OhSure's comment (supposedly confirmed by good sources) that Rove is to be indicted soon, but here's a little more on the coming indictment from Dissident Voice's Joshua Frank (the link comes courtesy of Come And Take It, a community of Texas left wing bloggers):

Occasionally I get emails from Washington folks who work on the Hill claiming to possess juicy insider digs on our public servants and their corporate paymasters. I usually delete said emails, as I don't want to be responsible for propagating dirty rumors or false information that can't be corroborated. I'd rather let Judith Miller and the New York Times do that. Nonetheless, in the past 24 hours I have been contacted by three separate congressional Democrats in Washington, by email and later phone, who all say the same thing: Karl Rove is about to be indicted.

Joshua Frank also makes note of the RedState comment:

Apparently, I'm not the only one who has been leaked this information either. Over at Redstate, a right-wing Internet blog, one member who calls himself "Ohsure", also claims that "[four] Great sources confirmed" the matter, and later added: "I not only don't do this, I have never done this. But here it is; `Karl Rove will be indicted late this, or early next week.' I'm trusting a source. So either I am made a [sic] into an overzealous horses a**, or..., I have good sources and may be more trusted to get these things right."

It looks like Rove isn't going to be able to weasel out of this.  I've been skeptical since the start (as one Kossack put it "I'm afraid to get excited about this like a poor kid is afraid to get excited about Christmas) but this is definitely hopeful news.  The Washington buzz is that Rove will be indicted; now let's work on that conviction.  

But what about all the speculation that this could unravel something a little higher up? It looks like the White House is seeking some heavy duty cover; namely Jim Sharp. The link, also via Come And Take It, has some exceprts from FindLaw and RawStory explaining the implications of Bush seeking outside counsel and elaborating on Jim Sharp's expertise in covering up GOP "accidents", including his involvement in representing some big players in Iran-Contra.

The ball is rolling, and it will not be stopped.

Today, June 30th, marks the end of the quarterly reporting period for fundraising.  Many who hold the view that money defines a campaign's legitimacy will be watching Chuck Pennacchio's funds closely, using it as a measure for just how seriously they should take Chuck.

Its sad that (as many of you saw today in Chuck's diary entry) his clearly superior stances on the issues are threatened to be washed away by those using funds as a barometer, but its an unfortunate reality.

Those of you out there who support true grassroots up progressive politics, please contribute anything you can to Chuck's campaign, and give the misguided who judge a campaging's worthiness based on funds alone something to chew on.  There has never been a better time for action to take back the Democratic Party and create an army of small grassroots donors who will own politics not just in PA, but in the entirety of the United States.

I know many critcise Chuck as an unelectable canidate. Now is the time to prove them wrong. Chuck is the canidate I can support in good consience, and I hope with your help he can be representing us all in the United States Senate.

This is one hurdle of many in building a strong progressive voice, and I thank everyone who can contribute to this excellent cause.
   

From Dr.Pennacchio's campaign blog:

The Win-Win Campaign

If it's not already clear, I want you to know that I seek only the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate in 2006, in order to secure the right to run against, and beat, Rick Santorum in November 2006.  In other words, I will not run as a third party candidate.  If Bob Casey, Jr. should win, I will support him.  I am waiting for him to make the same pledge.

Sorry for two entries so close together, but this is too good to pass up:

I recently received an e-mail from moveon.org, asking which candidate we would like them to endorse to go against Rick Santorum. First, this is great news, because they actually mentioned Chuck Pennacchio. But this is a great opportunity for us. If we flood them with responses, asking them to endorse Chuck, we can really get some exposure for our man. I think we should bombard Moveon.org and let them know who the best canidate is to take on Rick Santorum next year. A big endorsement like that could really be helpful.

Your pal,
Eric

Anyone out there reading this who feels inspired by Chuck's politics or would just like to see some fair press coverage in a primary that already has the scales tilted heavily in favor of the State Party's anointee should contact MoveOn and encourage them to endorse Dr.Pennacchio.

A canidate who truly embodies progressive ideals and grassroots politics, Pennacchio '06.

While George Bush was touring Pennsylvania in an attempt to salvage his dead in the water push to privatize Social Security while silmeultaneously raising an obscene amount of money for Rick Santorum's Senate campaign, he delivered some especially harsh rhetoric aimed at us "obstructionists":

On a variety of issues, including Social Security, rethinking the tax code and approval of his judicial nominees, Mr. Bush said, Democrats have done nothing but say no to his ideas while offering none of their own.

The Democratic leadership, he said, embodies "the philosophy of the stop sign, the agenda of the roadblock."

Perhaps Mr.Bush needs to reconsider who he aims his criticism at.  After all, the Republicans have the majority in both legislative houses, thus any problems beyond a Democratic filibuster in the Senate are the result of their own troops not staying in line.  

Even beyond this obvious problem in attempting to continue to tag Democrats with the obstrutionist label, I think there's also something telling about the rhetoric used: why is it bad to embrace the "philosophy of the stop sign"?  After all, stop signs and roadblocks purpose is to insure the safety of drivers on the road, often times preventing dangerous collisions or driving down a street that is hazardous.

The key players and cohorts of this Administration appear to embrace the mindset of those who run stop signs, recklessley endangering the lives of themselves and those around them because they're in a hurry.  And when one reviews the policies pursued by the Administration, Bush's attempt at figurative language is quite revealing: a headlong rush into a war fueld by politicized intelligence, with no real exit strategy; legislation that jeopardizes civil liberties pushed through Congress in a fearful post-9/11 era; trying to force a vote on an Ambassador before all the relevant facts to his fitness(that are being concealed by the White House) have been debated, and the list goes on.  The Republican Party appears to have contempt for the "stop signs" and "roadblocks" of proper democratic procedure that insures there is proper deliberation before the government makes vital decisions.  

Perhaps more people in Washington should embrace the "philosophy of the stop sign" and put the brakes on this reckless Republican dominated government.