>And why would UFP/ANSWER (ugh) choose lesser-knowns
>instead of Lerner, if not because Lerner had criticized
>ANSWER?
Richard Becker said, himself, that this is why Lerner wasn't allowed to speak: Lerner criticized and red-baits ANSWER. He even acknowledges that Lerner requested that he speak longer than the three minutes everyone else had--at least according to the reporter (forget her name). So, somehow or other, there was more discussion or the reporter is wrong. If so, let's see Becker demand a retraction.
http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/lerner_becker_feb11_2003.mp3
In the radio interview Michale Pugliese forwarded, Becker (of ANSWER) clearly takes issue with Lerner's criticisms of ANSWER. Transcribed:
Richard Becker: "There was an understanding of all the coalitions and it was voted on at the first meeting that took place at the liason committee and it was voted on unanimously. That, peleop should not be invited who have engaged in launching attacks on other antiwar coalitions. And ahh Michael Lerner, ahh, the Oct 26th demonstration, the Jan 19th demonstration and now as we approach Feb. 16th has had nothing but criticisms and attacks that he has put forward. And he has particularly attacked the ANSWER coalition in what we regard as a red-baiting and uh and uh what he's hoping to be a very destructive basis.
Cant' Remember her name said in the broadcast that, "Becker charged that Lerner criticized ANSWER for being influenced by a Marxist sect and that he stepped up his criticism after his request to speak longer than other speakers had been ignored."