Fox News' Sean Hannity has said that Elena Kagan "should be disqualified" and that her background is “strident, radical left, like the president.” Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich similarly said on Fox News Sunday that Obama "should withdraw" Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court, calling her “anti-military,” a claim as intellectually hollow as saying civil rights activists are anti-America or education-reformers are anti-school.

The Hannity/Gingrich lot has not surprisingly had a tough time getting their attacks to stick to Kagan, a nominee who has been praised as fair-minded and capable by more than a handful of prominent conservatives and legal activists.

What is surprising is that they haven't been able to get all of Fox News on board either. Fox senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano has said that Kagan's “credentials are impeccable”; Fox legal analyst Lis Wiehl wrote that Kagan has “excellent qualifications”; Fox News contributor Stephen Hayes said “she treats conservative arguments with respect” and “seems to genuinely be interested in understanding where conservative jurists are coming from”; and Fox News' Supreme Court reporter Shannon Bream said that “no one would argue that she is anything but a brilliant individual” and that she is seen as a “consensus-builder.”

And now Brit Hume, not known for speaking favorably of the Obama administration, has said “nothing” has come out about Kagan that would threaten her nomination and "there's no evidence" that she is extreme. This on the same morning when Gingrich said she shouldn't even be considered.

It seems clear that Gingrich and Hannity, along with others straining to make a radical out of Elena Kagan, made up their minds about Obama's nominee long before Obama had a nominee.