The Latest Cook Political Report/RT Strategies Poll (among most likely voters, October 19-22):

· Presidential job approval- 37% approve, 57% disapprove

· 2006 Generic Congressional Ballot Test- Democrats 57%, Republicans 35%

The wave continues.

The Republican Party is running this ad in Tennessee against Democratic candidate Harold Ford.

The REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE in Tennessee says:

Corker today repeated a demand that the Republican National Committee stop running a television ad that Corker called "tacky." It features a purported Playboy model who tells viewers, "I met Harold at the Playboy party!" One RNC source indicated the committee is likely to continue running the ad.

Tacky is a nice word for what this ad is. Republican values on display.

Even Chris Matthews gets it:

OK. Just let me say this to Connecticut, if we have a war that keeps going after this election, don't sit back and say, "I did my best." Because the best thing you can do is vote against the war, right? . . . If you're against the war, vote against it. You only get one vote. Shouldn't you vote against it, if you care about it?

Will the Lamont campaign get it?

Oh BTW, the election is a referendum on the Iraq Debacle everywhere, except, it seems, Connecticut:

It's two weeks away, and the 2006 midterm elections look like a referendum on Iraq, a war in which President Bush and his party have lost not just the political center but significant chunks of their base. . . . [w]ar remains the prime issue driving congressional voter preference. And the war's critics include not just eight in 10 Democrats but 64 percent of independents, 40 percent of conservatives, 35 percent of evangelical white Protestants and a quarter of Republicans.

Bob Menendez's new ad is a good one. I agree with Greg Sargent:

Dem Senator Robert Menendez has a new ad up which is definitely worth a look, because it does something we haven't seen in a Dem ad this cycle: It takes a key Republican attack line -- the idea that big things like our safety and freedom are "at stake" in this election -- and turns it on the GOP. The ad, aptly called "Big," unabashedly proclaims that big things are indeed "at stake," which is exactly why you should vote Democratic.

Menendez draws a strong contrast with his GOP opponent on Iraq, Social Security and Choice. Other Dem candidates could use other issues like the minimum wage and stem cell research. This is the way to go down the stretch it seems to me.

After accusing Democrats of emboldening the terrorists by criticizing President Bush's Iraq Debacle, the shameless unprincipled hack de facto Republican candidate for Senate in Connecticut now wants to bring the troops home.

What a piece of work. Joe will say anything to save his and President Bush's political skins.

Many of you by now have seen the GOP's "bin Laden" ad with the sound of a ticking clock as the only sound until a voice appears at the end.

CNN.com ran this story about it: GOP terrorism ad sparks Democratic furor. The ad equates the GOP with being able to protect us from terrorism, even though President Bush ignored the direct bin Laden threat before 9/11 and he has not been concerned with finding bin Laden since 2002 by his own admission. Also, when Clinton had a hit put on bin Laden in the midst of the Lewisky scandal, the Republicans claimed a "wag the dog" scenario, and Clinton backed off when the GOP yelled "politics."  So who is responsible for bin Laden not being killed in 1998?  The GOP, not Clinton.  How stupid do they think we are?

Anyway, I watched the current ad before I went back and saw the CNN story, and I made the same observation that the CNN writers made:

I've been searching for the transcript to former President Bill Clinton's "Common Good" speech at Georgetown this past week for days. I should have known Think Progress would have it.

Read and spread it around, and use it to help send Republicans packing.

Here's more on Common Good Progressivism.

The one bright spot for the GOP this election cycle has been the success of Joe Lieberman's reelection run so far. Red State is ecstatic:

Amusingly, the netroots is now hyping the candidacy of Republican Alan Schlesinger, who is also a candidate for the Connecticut Senate seat in the event that anyone has forgotten. The netroots seems to believe that this will somehow trick Republicans into voting for a non-viable candidate and allow Lamont to sneak his way past Lieberman for the Senate seat. And somehow, they seem to think that no one is wise to this.

If the Republicans are able to hold Lieberman's seat, it certainly will be the biggest win of the cycle for the Republicans.

More reason to redouble our efforts for the Democratic candidate, Ned Lamont.

A new Newsweek poll finds that Republicans are losing support among their base. Here are some of the findings:

• Majority Wants Dems to Win Congress;
• 31 Percent of White Evangelicals Would Vote for Democratic Candidate in Their District
• Bush Approval at 35 Percent;
• 56 Percent Say President Won't Be Able to Get Much Done in Remainder of Term
• 74 Percent Support Dems on Drug Pricing, Including 70 Percent of Republicans;
• 68 Percent Support Dems on Hike in Minimum Wage,
  Including 53 Percent of GOP
• 65 Percent of Americans Say U.s. Losing Ground in Iraq;

And perhaps the worst for the GOP,

• Terrorism Trails as Issue Behind Iraq, Economy, and Health Care

This makes me very uncomfortable. A group in Congress is trying to reach out to faith-based voters to sell them on how Democrats are are a party of faith.

Rather than cede red states to Republicans, the party is buying airtime on Christian radio stations, with the message that Democrats are indeed a party with deep moral convictions.

Moral convictions are fine. Religious-based pitches are not.

I want the Democrats to win in November, but not by pandering to those who want to mix religion and politics.

Update: Scout_Prime at First Draft tells the G-d Dems to get out of the way. I agree. Why don't they follow those calling for the Common Good instead of Republicans?

Matt Stoller posits:

Now, this race is exceptionally strange, because it means that Connecticut is cutting against the national tide pretty aggressively. . . . Is the war is less important in Connecticut than nationally? I don't think so. Could it be Lamont? Is it because Lamont didn't successfully paint himself as opposed to the war? Not likely. So what is going on, exactly? . . . {I]n a nutshell. Joe Lieberman has promised to end the war in Iraq, and it's a message that a substantial number of antiwar Democrats, Republicans, and unaffiliated voters want to hear. . .

Boy does Matt give the Lamont campaign a free pass here. Lieberman has not said anything substantive on Iraq for months, including the primary campaign, and Lamont has let him get away with it. Lamont's campaign was given terrible advice and took it - broaden the message. For those who care, on the other side what I think the Lamont campaign should be talking about 24/7.

As of now, Republicans appear to be headed toward losing at least 20 House seats—perhaps 30 to 35 or even a few more. The competitive races are there: 45 GOP-held seats are vulnerable and another 18 are potentially so.

In the Senate, the Republicans will most likely lose five or six seats. Six, of course, would give Democrats control of the chamber. It’s possible— though less likely—that the GOP will lose as few as four or as many as seven Senate seats.