I haven’t done a scientific survey, but I discern three basic tracks:
(1) Simple denial. Just don’t address the issue. That’s Jonah Goldberg’s approach.
(2) Argue that it’s not fair to start talking about lies under oath when the investigation is supposed to be about sexual misconduct. This is David French’s line. Note for anybody born yesterday evening: This argument is being made to defend someone who made his right wing bones by trying to impeach a president for lying under oath, in the course of investigation that was initially about alleged sexual misconduct.
(3) Admit that Kavanaugh is lying, but defend his lying because the whole thing is a left wing witch hunt, so under the circumstances the lying isn’t really lying, or something. Also sprach Rich Lowry. I believe this view may be related to the Jesuitical doctrine of mental reservation, but I didn’t go to Georgetown Perp.