Did GOP really oppose Kagan as Solicitor General last year because of military recruiting?

That's certainly the conventional wisdom today, as Kagan's political opponents stress the issue from her tenure as dean of the Harvard Law School. And reading press accounts, that tale often gets stressed.

From ABC's Jonathan Karl:

When Elena Kagan was confirmed as Solicitor General last year, the overwhelming majority of Republicans -- 31 -- voted “no,” primarily because of Kagan's decision to block military recruiters from Harvard Law School.

But is that accurate, or is there a bit of revisionist history going on, designed by conservatives to gin up the military recruiting issue, which they seem to think is there best way to attack Kagan?

Because the truth is, if you go back and read the transcripts from Kagan's day-long, Feb., 2009 Senate confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee, the issue of on-campus military recruiting barely came up at all. And there was certainly no indication from many of the Republicans on the committee that the issue represented a crucial one in how she would be judged. Indeed, Kagan sailed out of the committee on a 13-3 vote for recommendation.

It was only later, during the full Senate vote, that Kagan ran into sustained Republican resistance. And much of that stemmed from the fact that Sen. Arlen Specter, a then-Republican, did not support her nomination because he did not feel that she had been forthcoming enough in follow-up written questions that he had posed to her. There was no indication that Specter based his “no” vote solely on the military recruiting issue.

It's true that leading up to the final vote, several Republican members of the Senate issued statements about their votes and did mention the issue of military recruiting as a reason for their no vote. But again, at the time the issue was rarely put forward as the primary reason for their failure to support her nomination.

Yet, just over twelve months later we're being told that the military recruiting issue was the deal breaker for Republicans in 2009. I just don't see proof of that.