Monthly Archives: January 2023

GOP Ad Says Sen. Joe Manchin (D-Hell No) Owns a ‘Luxury Yacht’. Is That Right?

by doctorads

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and reading Axios Sneak Peek, when I came across this item by Josh Kraushaar.

The NRSC [National Republican Senatorial Committee] is out with a new direct mail and digital ad campaign portraying Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) as a Davos-trekking elitist, firing the first of many shots to come ahead of a potential re-election campaign . . .

Why it matters: Manchin, who hasn’t announced what he plans to do in 2024, is the only Democrat who can realistically hold a Senate seat in one of the most conservative states in the country.

The ad also says Manchin drives a Maserati and owns a $700,000 luxury yacht.

Is that why the boat’s named “Almost Heaven”?

– Almost Heavin’

Dear Ms. Heavin’,

Republicans would like nothing better than to hound Joe Manchin into retirement, since they’re desperate for his Senate seat.

Here’s the ad they hope will facilitate his exit, and please enjoy the narrator’s British accent, which is supposed to echo the voice of Robin Leach, late of the venerable Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.

Let’s do some fact-checking, shall we?

• For starters, it’s true that Manchin attended the World Economic Forum in Davos this month, a turn on the big stage that was largely notable for the high-five he shared with Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Me Mine) over preserving  the Senate filibuster – something we thought  the NRSC [checks notes]  would totally dig. Guess not.

• It’s also true that Manchin owns a Maserati, for which he’s previously taken grief from climate change activists and Brian Williams. But isn’t owning a luxury car part of the American dream, which we thought Republicans [checks notes] have always touted? Guess not.

• It is not true that Manchin owns a “$700,000 D.C. luxury yacht,” as Andrew Beaujon noted two years ago in Washingtonian.

It’s not a yacht. Republicans tried to paint Manchin as yacht-owning “Washington Joe” during his 2018 reelection campaign. Mmmm, not quite: “The vessel is listed as ‘recreational’ on documents,” PolitiFact wrote in a fact-check. “However, a less confrontational—but similarly accurate—description could be ‘houseboat,’ since it is Manchin’s residence in Washington.”

P.S. The source the NRSC cites for the “luxury yacht” designation – 100 Days in Appalachia – is a known right-wing propaganda machine.

• Finally, the NRSC spot proclaims that “Life is very good for Democrat Joe Manchin while West Virginians get stuck with higher prices, smaller paychecks, and open borders . . . Tell Maserati Manchin it’s time to stand up for West Virginians.”

Not to get technical about it, but check out this graphic from Jonathan V. Last’s Triad newsletter at The Bulwark.

See that deep blue blotch straddling Virginia and Kentucky? That’s blood-red West Virginia, baby!  The Mountain State gets back $3.09 for every tax dollar it ponies up to the feds.

If you don’t think Joe Manchin has had a lot to do with that, you just haven’t been paying attention.

Is Rick Scott’s New TV Spot Meant to Give Mitch McConnell the Finger?

by doctorads

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and reading Punchbowl News, when I came across this item by Jake Sherman.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), the former chair of the NRSC, is running an ad nationwide touting his race against Mitch McConnell for Republican leader and his 11-point plan, which became a widely used Democratic talking point.

The new spot is running in D.C., New York, Philadelphia and Los Angeles.

Scott is up for re-election in Florida in 2024, but this ad isn’t running in Florida, according to AdImpact. This is sure to raise lots of eyebrows in Senate GOP circles.

It sure raised mine, Doc. What the hell’s that all about?

– Scot Free

Dear Mr. Free,

Let’s begin at the beginning.

Last March, Florida Sen. Rick Scott (R-Largest Medicare Fraud in U.S. History) introduced his 11-point Plan to Rescue America, as Jonathan Weisman reported in the New York Times.

WASHINGTON — Senator Rick Scott of Florida, the somewhat embattled head of the Senate Republicans’ campaign arm, said one utterly indisputable thing on Thursday when he stood before a packed auditorium of supporters at the conservative Heritage Foundation: His plan for a G.O.P. majority would make everyone angry at him, Republicans included.

It was an odd admission for the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. His leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, has repeatedly told Mr. Scott to pipe down about his “11-Point Plan to Rescue America,” with its call to impose income taxes on more than half of Americans who pay none now, and to sunset all legislation after five years, presumably including Social Security and Medicare.

According to this CNN report by Alex Rogers and Steve Contorno, other proposals in Scott’s plan included “ending imports from China, cutting the federal government workforce by 25% and building a wall on the US-Mexico border and naming it after former President Donald Trump.”

As everyone except Rick Scott could have told you, the whole thing went over like the metric system.

Especially lathered up was Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-I’m de captain here!), as he made clear at a press conference reported by CNN.

“Let me tell you what would not be a part of our agenda,” McConnell said. “We will not have as part of our agenda a bill that raises taxes on half the American people, and sunsets Social Security and Medicare within five years.”

“That will not be part of the Republican Senate majority agenda,” he reiterated. “We will focus instead on what the American people are concerned about: inflation, energy, defense, the border and crime.”

Apparently undaunted by the widespread backlash he encountered at the time and his subsequent beatdown by McConnell in last fall’s Senate leadership bakeoff, Scott has doubled down with his current TV spot.

Here’s his pitch, annotated for your convenience.

People told me not to run for Republican leader against Mitch McConnell. They said I wouldn’t win. (Duh)

I knew it was gonna be hard. (As in, impossible)

But we gotta start somewhere. (Too bad Rick Scott is currently nowhere)

Look – we’re on the road to woke socialism. (His proof: A screenshot of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez)

And Republicans are just a speed bump. (Not even that smart, honestly)

We can’t keep doing the same old thing. It’s time for Republicans to be bold, to speak the truth, and to stop caving in. (The way Mitch McConnell keeps doing)

Help us change our party – join us at RescueAmerica.com. (Please give me money so I can run more noodleheaded ads like this one)

I’m Rick Scott. I approve this message. (Of course you do)

Scott is spending a reported seven figures on the national ad buy, which truly makes you wonder why he doesn’t just set his money on fire.

Meanwhile, Politico Playbook PM reports that a new ad campaign has been launched by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, whose chairman until 12 days ago was [checks notes] Rick Scott.

2024 WATCH — “‘Retire or get fired’: Senate GOP campaign committee targets Manchin, red-state Democrats with ad campaign,” by Fox News’ Paul Steinhauser: “The ad campaign from the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), titled ‘Retire or Get Fired,’ takes aim at Trump-state Democratic Sens. JOE MANCHIN of West Virginia, JON TESTER of Montana and SHERROD BROWN of Ohio over what the NRSC calls their ‘liberal records’ and ties the senators to President Joe Biden.” Watch the Manchin ad … Watch the Tester ad … Watch the Brown ad

Here’s the Tester ad.

Inconveniently for the NRSC, Morning Consult’s Eli Yokley just reported that “60% of Montana voters approve of Democratic Sen. Jon Tester, making him the most popular incumbent expected to face a competitive 2024 contest.”

So maybe not the wisest use of the NRSC’s money.

The Doc’s diagnosis: It’s hard to imagine that those NRSC ads came together in the past two weeks, which means they probably represent more of Rick Scott’s handiwork. If so, the logical conclusion would be a) he has four middle fingers, and b) none of them are very flippin’ effective.

Or is our analysis for the birds . . .

Really? People Can Sue Movie Studios for Promoting Bogus Trailers?

by doctorads

Well the Doc opened up the old mailbag today and here’s what poured out.

Dear Dr. Ads,

There I was, minding my own business and reading MediaPost Agency Daily, when I came across this piece by Fern Siegel.

Movie Fans Can Sue Studios For Advertising Misleading Trailers

False advertising law now applies to deceptive movie trailers.

U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson ruled movie studios can be sued under these circumstances. The case involves the 2019 film “Yesterday,” about a world without the Beatles.

Two fans of actress Ana de Armas (“Blonde,” “No Time To Die”) rented the movie in January because they saw her in the trailer. The catch? She isn’t in the actual film.

Universal Studios tried to have the case dismissed, but the judge rejected the claim.

What the hell, Doc – I thought commercial speech was protected under the First Amendment. Whatever happened to the puffery defense?

– Film Buffeted

Dear Buff,

In this case, the puffery defense seems to have gone up in smoke.

First of all, let’s stipulate that the MediaPost piece is late to the party of the first part, disclosing that “Variety first reported the news” – a week earlier, if you’re keeping score at home.

Here’s Variety reporter Gene Waddaus’ scoop on the trailer tempest.

Universal sought to throw out the lawsuit, arguing that movie trailers are entitled to broad protection under the First Amendment. The studio’s lawyers argued that a trailer is an “artistic, expressive work” that tells a three-minute story conveying the theme of the movie, and should thus be considered “non-commercial” speech.

But [U.S. District Judge Stephen] Wilson rejected that argument, finding that a trailer is commercial speech and is subject to the California False Adverting Law and the state’s Unfair Competition Law.

“Universal is correct that trailers involve some creativity and editorial discretion, but this creativity does not outweigh the commercial nature of a trailer,” Wilson wrote. “At its core, a trailer is an advertisement designed to sell a movie by providing consumers with a preview of the movie.”

The backstory is a total hoot: “The plaintiffs, Conor Woulfe of Maryland and Peter Michael Rosza of San Diego County, Calif., each paid $3.99 to rent ‘Yesterday’ on Amazon Prime. They are seeking at least $5 million as representatives of a class of movie customers.”

For the record, here’s the treacherous trailer.

Variety noted that Universal Studios also threw the whataboutism defense against the wall.

In their briefing on the issue, Universal’s lawyers argued that movie trailers have long included clips that do not appear in the finished film. They cited “Jurassic Park” (another Universal film), which had a trailer comprised entirely of footage that is not in the movie.

No dice – the case is headed for discovery and a motion for class certification.

At this point the Doc feels compelled to summon the Bards of Liverpool.

Yesterday

All my troubles seemed so far away

Now it looks as though they’re here to stay . . .

Looks as though, indeed.