by Tamara Baker

July 1, 1999 -- ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA -- One of the problems of being a centrist is that you get heavy flak from all other ends of the spectrum, whose members -- no matter their other disagreements -- are united in their dislike of "compromising" middle-of-the-roaders.

Another problem is that centrism, by its very equitable, let's-be-reasonable- about-this, let's-look-at-all-sides-of-the-question nature, does not generate the sort of unthinking my-opinion-right-or-wrong fanaticism that sustains the attacks and activities of the other factions. Thus, centrists are all too willing to admit to being human and flawed and to apologize for their misdeeds (which leads to a public perception of their being more flawed than others), while the fanatics at the other ends of the spectrum never apologize for and never explain their own actions.

I mention this by way of introducing two items that show how Al Gore is being pummeled unfairly by both the right and the left.

The first is contained in a column by Garry Sisco from the wonderful Online Journal magazine).

Seems that Garry Sisco forced himself to listen to Reich (er, I meant Rush... oh, no, I didn't!) Limbaugh the other day, and heard ol' Mr. Excellence In Broadcasting tell some major-ass prevarications about Al Gore.

Limburger, according to Sisco, has been referring to a proposed telephone-bill surcharge, the surcharge the phone companies are attempting to add to phone bills to pay for the cost of connecting schools with the Internet, as "the Gore tax."

Never mind that the requirement that this be done was included in the 1996 Telecommunications Act created by Newt Gingrich and Trent Loot (er, I meant "Lott"... oh, no, I didn't!). Loot finally got it past the Senate after two years of monumental efforts on his part -- for which the telecom industry has amply rewarded him, as a quick check of the Federal Election Commission's campaign contribution listings makes plain.

As Sisco notes, "This was far from a secret plot by Gore to tax Americans to pay for Internet connections to schools. These connections for schools were supposed to be a small offset for the overwhelming tilt toward the industry in the bill. This bill was a multibillion dollar tax break delivered by the GOP (joined by too many Dems) to the telecommunications industry. For which tax break, the real taxpayers are thanked by the industry's efforts to charge us even more."

So much for Rush.

Meanwhile, the Larry "Ol' Abe was gay" Kramer far-left fringe of the AIDS movement is busily misrepresenting the facts about Gore's stance on drugs for South African AIDS patients, and Gore's opponents of the right are only too happy to spread the "word", in the form of lavish press attention given to said loony-left AIDS activists picketing Gore's campaign appearances. (It would be instructive to see if these folks are getting any money from the Bush campaign. It wouldn't be the first time a left-leaning group has been given a leg up by its ideological opposites; Russia's Bolsheviks were financed in large part by the German imperialist government, which wagered correctly that the internal strife caused thereby in Russia would force the Czar to pull out of World War I.)

And, as usual, lies had circled the globe thirty zillion times -- that is, before the truth had had a chance to get its boots on. On Page A26 of the June 24th, 1999 Washington Post, the truth finally makes its appearance in a major newspaper.

The truth, simply put, is that while Gore and the Clinton did indeed defend (as did the entire Republican Gongress) the drug companies' rights to protect their patents overseas, neither Clinton nor Gore have been as staunchly on the side of the drug companies as the protesters haranguing Gore would have you believe.

Per the Post:

The Clinton administration, led by Mr. Gore, has sought to protect industry's legal position. You could make a case that it should push harder to help South Africa get access to drugs it can afford. But Mr. Gore has not been as one-sided as industry -- or many Republicans in Congress -- would like. Last year the U.S. drug industry persuaded a Republican congressman from New Jersey, home to many pharmaceutical giants, to attach a provision to the foreign-aid bill blocking U.S. assistance to South Africa's government until the State Department explained what it was doing on industry's behalf. The congressman, Rodney Frelinghuysen, wasn't satisfied with the department's first report, so it submitted a revision, portraying itself more strongly as a champion of U.S. industry.

Language from that report -- ordered up because the industry perceived the administration as too soft on South Africa and dutifully delivered by the administration to forestall a cutoff of U.S. aid -- is now cited by Mr. Gore's critics on the other side as evidence that he is in industry's pocket.

Some days you just can't win for losing.