[lovelyivy84]

Well the New York Times is not what anyone would call pro-republican, so I wouldn't say they were spinning anything. This discussiom started in the press, not on the hill and it was started by *gasp* republicans.

ON THE RIGHT

Conservatives Led the Way in Criticizing Lott's Remarks
By JIM RUTENBERG and FELICITY BARRINGER

Early, widespread and harsh criticism by conservative commentators and publications has provided much of the tinder for the political fires surrounding Senator Trent Lott since his favorable comments about the segregationist presidential campaign of 1948.

Conservative columnists, including Andrew Sullivan, William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, and publications like National Review and The Wall Street Journal have castigated Mr. Lott for his remarks at Senator Strom Thurmond's 100th-birthday party, arguing that the conservative movement's credibility on racially tinged issues like affirmative action and school vouchers has been squandered.

Mr. Sullivan, on his Web site, and Mr. Krauthammer, writing in The Washington Post, are among those who have called on Mr. Lott to resign. Others, like Sean Hannity of Fox News Channel and the radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, have said the remarks were indefensible but were not necessarily reason enough for Mr. Lott to step down. An editorial in The Wall Street Journal stopped short of a direct call for Mr. Lott's ouster, but named three Republicans it preferred in the post.

The responses by conservatives have provided a marked contrast to the contention — put forth most recently by former President Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore — that the nation's conservative news media acts as a monolithic Republican support system.

Robert Bartley, the editor of The Wall Street Journal, said, "I don't know that there's anything close," when asked if he could remember such a revolt against a conservative leader by those who are usually like-minded on the issues.

Richard Lowry, the editor of National Review, said that young conservatives particularly feel undermined by Mr. Lott's comment.

"The reaction to this on the right has been tinged with outrage," Mr. Lowry said. "I think that's a product of decades of hard work that conservatives have done on racially charged issues out of idealism and principle. To have those positions tarred, even inadvertently, with this backwardness on race is extremely distressing."

The intensity of the criticism has even surprised Democrats, who say they are unused to seeing the conservative press take on one of its own so ferociously.

"It's a level of cannibalism that we generally don't see," said Chris Lehane, the Democratic strategist who was the spokesman for Al Gore's presidential campaign.

Some Democrats, in fact, are crediting conservative commentators with providing the momentum for the story, which was first reported only in dribs and drabs in the mainstream press.

Even before prominent Democrats joined the criticism, conservatives with active Web sites were posting highly critical columns.

Mr. Sullivan, one of the first conservatives to highlight the issue, wrote: "After his disgusting remarks at Strom Thurmond's 100th-birthday party, it seems to me that the Republican Party has a simple choice. Either they get rid of Lott as majority leader; or they should come out formally as a party that regrets desegregation and civil rights for African-Americans.

"Why are the Republican commentators so silent about this? And the liberals?"

Mr. Sullivan and the few who weighed in on the issue early on were not alone for long. In his call last Thursday for Mr. Lott to resign from the leadership, Mr. Krauthammer wrote, "What is so appalling about Lott's remarks is not the bigotry but the blindess," and he noted that "the civil rights movement forever set the standard for social transformation in America."

"Lott sees the civil rights movement and `all these problems over all these years.' He missed the whole story," Mr. Krauthamer wrote.

The next day, the lead editorial in The Wall Street Journal all but called for Mr. Lott's resignation, saying: "The Senate Republicans will now have to defend against the race card that Mr. Lott gave their enemies to play. In light of this, it's remarkable that Senate Republicans have shown the restraint they have."

The editorial named three Republican senators — Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Bill Frist of Tennessee and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania — who, the editors thought "would all do better as G.O.P. leaders than Mr. Lott."

The televised debate, meanwhile, has at times resembled a bizarre world with various guests taking wholly unexpected positions.

Last Wednesday, "The O'Reilly Factor," the Fox News Channel talk show with Bill O'Reilly as host, featured a white guest from the conservative Family Research Council, Kenneth L. Connor, who skewered Mr. Lott for his remarks. Squaring off against him on the program, was Kevin Martin, of the African American Republican Leadership Council.

"I'm defending it," Mr. Martin said, because "both sides, conservative and liberal, are playing this for their own political agenda."