If LCV Ads Are "Obviously" About Senate Campaign, Then Response Mailer "Obviously" Should Have Been A Campaign Expense

Roy Blunt in today's News-Leader:

Before addressing the attacks on me that were obviously designed to help the liberal candidate in the U.S. Senate race, permit me to make a general point about the economic and energy policies of the one-party Congress directed by Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

If the League of Conservation Voters' "Stain" ad is "obviously designed to help" Robin Carnahan's Senate campaign, then Roy Blunt's response mail piece was "obviously designed" to help him in the U.S. Senate race. 

Obviously.

I'll also point out (again) that Roy Blunt is intentionally confusing the facts when he writes:

An Obama administration analysis showed a cap and trade system could increase energy prices by $1,761 per family.

This estimate has absolutely nothing to do with the energy bills being considered by Congress now.  PolitiFact.com wrote the following about this estimate when they rated it false in September.

[The] statement that households will pay $1,761 in new taxes every year is based on a blogger's incorrect assumptions and overly simple math. The estimate does not account for revenue that will be returned to consumers in the form of rebates and other efficiency measures. Furthermore, the number is based on old numbers; the Treasury estimate was written on the premise that all permits would be sold, which, ultimately, is not the form that the Waxman-Markey legislation has taken. Finally, both Alexander and McCullagh portray money raised by selling these permits as a tax.

Roy Blunt has been misleading the public about the clean energy proposals in Congress for months -- why would he start telling the truth now?