I think Liza and Doug has it exactly right, and I didn't sign the petition for the same reasons. I think Lerner should be allowed to speak, though I find him hard to take, and I don't think ANSWER should be made an issue of for it M-L connections. Look here, this is a diversion, can we get back to opposing the war? jks
Liza Featherstone <lfeather32 at erols.com> wrote:Clearly it was not a good idea for the whole coalition to agree that no "critics" of any of the coalition's members could speak. That sends a message that debate and critique within the movement is not allowed. The Lerner flap illustrated that vividly -- obviously he's someone who should be included. But I didn't sign that petition because the very last sentence of it revealed that its agenda was not to improve the rally but to divide the movement. They were making ANSWER's existence the issue when the point is that people can have criticisms and still be part of the movement. However, I hope some good will come out of the whole mess -- organizers probably won't agree to that "no critics" rule next time.
Liza
> From: Doug Henwood
> Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 09:41:27 -0500
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: The Lerner Affair
>
> LouPaulsen wrote:
>
>>> The point is to stop the war, not aggrandize ANSWER.
>>
>> The point is to stop the war, not split the movement.
>
> Yup. I couldn't sign that statement because even though I thought
> Lerner should be allowed to speak - despite his annoying piety and
> self-promotion - but I though the organizers of that petition were
> really looking for a club to bash ANSWER with. I'm not a member of
> the ANSWER fan club by any means, but I thought this was the wrong
> fight to have at the wrong time.
>
> Doug
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20030212/c002a99f/attachment.htm>