Hannity says Kagan's background is "strident, radical left, like the president"

Like Hannity has the standing to call anyone else "strident..."

What a freaking zoo.How does faux even stay a "news" network whilst spewing this boughing toadyism.

How in the world does one have a "strident" background?
No, this is the "strident and shrill" that was applied to Senator Clinton reemerging from Sean. A monster from the Id.

Dear Sean,

I'd take it as a kindness if you'd get off TV, oh and by the way, here this is for you.

It's not nice to lie about people.

Of course Sean-- like all the others who are screaming about Kagan-- he served proudly in the military and took advantage of all that on-campus recruiting opportunity.

Ah, uhm, he did, didn't he....?

I think, I think, I think...no you don't Hannity. My goodness towards the end of that clip with everybody talking over each other it sounded like a damned chicken coop.

I can only hope they are radical lefties. <crossing fingers>

Did that Hannity person actually call somebody ELSE "strident"? Seriously?

These idiots should be falling on their knees in gratitude for Obama actually putting up somebody who shares their worldview as much as Kagan does.

I think Diane Wood would have been a much superior nominee. Instead, Obama asks the Republican Lucy's to hold the football, and right on cue, they pull it when he tries to kick.

When is it going to occur to him that there is no percentage in expecting good faith or honest dealings from the Republican Party anymore? They've decided that scorched earth is the best political strategy, and their every action is dictated by that decision.

i just can't stand to watch this hate-filled d-bag talk. he states his lies as undeniable facts, this is further perpetuated with the guests who are called "democratic strategists" that try to "challenge" him with passive pathetic arguments. it's absolutely disgusting and i'm infuriated and perplexed how anyone would believe this tripe, but sadly some do, and they love to teabag.

Except for, of course, the FACT that the President is not even close to being radical about, well, anything really.

Hannity says Kagan's background is "strident, radical left, like the president"

And Hannity is strident radical stupid.

From the MMFA blog a few days ago:

HANNITY: Well, let's go back to the Ruth Bader Ginsburg example, if we can, for a minute. Because I think elections mean something, and I know you do, Senator. And if a president wins an election, and he has a particular judicial philosophy -- in the case Bill Clinton picked two very left of center people for this position. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a former general counsel with the ACLU. She was approved 96-3.

George W. Bush is conservative. So if he has somebody with more of an originalist mainstream philosophy that he picks for the court, shouldn't the Democrats go along with that nominee, based on the fact that the Republican won this election?

So really...what's the point here? I know Sean wants to get his shots in, but aside from that, by his own reasoning, republicans should just let her through, right?