Michael Bennet was met by “Rubberstamp Man” upon his arrival for this first debate with Ken Buck. Allison Sherry of the Denver Post was unkind enough to post the photo on “The Spot” and then tweeted it.
http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2010/09/11/a-rubberstamp-against-bennet/14678/
If the Buck campaign was hoping to drive home the point that Bennet is a rubberstamp for Obama and Reid, Ms. Sherry certainly helped spread the message.

Allison Sherry’s article on the debate leaves the reader wondering if this was a cross examination or a debate. Clearly Buck’s skill as a prosecutor is highlighted in the article:

Buck pointed out that several media outlets have labeled the ad misleading and said comments were taken out of context, but Bennet said those findings were mistaken.
“So everybody’s mistaken but you?” Buck responded, to loud cheering and jeering.

Buck then asked whether Bennet supported a bill that devoted $1.5 million in earmarks to pay for a Pennsylvania airport named after Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., that serves fewer than 20 people a day.

“I’m sure that’s true,” Bennet said. “It was certainly not of interest to me.”

The crowd roared.

Buck said, “$1.5 million is certainly of interest to all of us.”

Bennet said he misheard the question and that he thought Buck was asking if he authorized the earmark because of Murtha’s involvement.

“I will not use your misstatement in a commercial,” Buck said.
http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_16054632?source=commented-#ixzz0zKNqKbxP.

Mike Littwin, also of the Denver Post, highlighted the same exchange in his article:

Buck asked whether Bennet supported a bill that had – yes – an earmark, and not just an earmark, but one that put in $1.5 million to pay for a Pennsylvania airport named after the late Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., an airport, according to Buck, that serves fewer than 20 people a day.
“I’m sure that’s true,” Bennet said. “It was certainly not of interest to me.”

The crowd caught the gaffe immediately. Bennet didn’t care about government pork? Is that really what he said?
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_16054668#ixzz0zKPbfeyU

ABC News, in recapping the debate, helps Buck’s cause by pointing out that the Denver Post has called Bennet’s ads dubious:

The two also disagreed over the veracity of Bennet’s recent negative TV ad. In an editorial Saturday, the Denver Post said the ad “offers a number of out-of-context quotes and dubious assertions regarding Buck’s positions.”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/09/buck-and-bennet-trade-jabs-in-feisty-colorado-senate-debate.html

The Associated Press gets in on the act by noting “several news organizations” have called the Bennet ads misleading.

The ad uses snippets of Buck’s remarks to describe him as too conservative. Buck and several news organizations have described it as misleading
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ig-I88jz782TWePtX3QrYHQWu5vAD9I65N8G0.

The Denver Post, ABC, and the AP certainly were injurious to Bennet. Bennet is in trouble when the liberal media finds it difficult to paint a poor Bennet performance in a positive light. I would assume Bennet’s performance was much worse than the recap. One can only imagine how the tradtionally conservative media outlets will portray his performance. Michael Bennet would be better served by not debating Ken Buck. Bennet learned last night why lawyers always advise their clients not to testify…prosecutors know how to bring out the worst in people during cross examination.