|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Congressional hopefuls vying to succeed U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo squared off on Jan. 31 in Palo Alto on an array of issues from the environment to the Israel-Hamas war but were ultimately disrupted from speaking further to the standing-room-only crowd by a group of protesters who began shouting and demanding a cease-fire in the Gaza Strip.
Nine of the 11 candidates seeking the District 16 seat participated in the forum, which was sponsored by Embarcadero Media Foundation in collaboration with Palo Alto Neighborhoods, the Midpeninsula Media Center and the city of Palo Alto. The forum was moderated by Palo Alto Online reporter Gennady Sheyner and Mountain View Voice reporter Zoe Morgan.
The candidates present were technology investor Peter Dixon; former San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo; Palo Alto City Council member Julie Lythcott-Haims; Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian; climate investor Joby Bernstein; state Assemblymember Evan Low; women’s-rights lawyer Ahmed Mostafa; former Menlo Park Mayor Peter Ohtaki; and Palo Alto City Council member Greg Tanaka.
Ohtaki and Ryan are Republicans, while the rest are Democrats. Former Saratoga City Council member Rishi Kumar and business owner Karl Ryan were not at the event.
The forum moderators asked candidates their takes on a range of issues, including their voting history, immigration and the environment.
On banning natural gas hookups in new buildings as a strategy to combat climate change, Mostafa said the approach to climate change must be done “in a sustainable way to ensure that our communities can do this and thrive. Oftentimes with regard to climate change, the brunt actually is faced by our most marginalized communities,” he said. “And so if we do this in a way that is sustainable and takes steps to get there, then we can actually protect those very communities that are precisely affected by the harms of climate change.”
Ohtaki also saw climate change as a high-priority issue.
“I believe climate change is real. It’s an existential threat,” Ohtaki said. “But I also believe that climate change incentives are far more powerful than climate change mandates. … I believe as a congressman we have to do federal incentives to get renewable energy in our grid.”
Bernstein, meanwhile, called for a nuanced approach in contending with climate change.
“The problem is that people who are still on gas pipelines, they will see their gas prices skyrocket,” Bernstein said. “So the individuals who can afford to build new homes or can afford new construction, they’ll benefit and see decreases, and we have a grid that’s reliable enough to get it done. The problem is everyone else who gets left behind. … We need to be very thoughtful about a policy that’s going to work for everyone in this state.”
Candidates fielded questions specific to their past decision-making as well. For instance, Low was asked for his response to the recent repeal of legislation he authored banning publicly funded travel to states with laws aimed against the LGBTQ+ community.
“As an openly LGBT candidate, I refuse to be discriminated against based on sexual orientation,” Low said. “That is the essence of what we’re talking about — how to protect public taxpayer dollars going to supporting states (with anti-LGBTQ laws). … You cannot legislate people like me out of existence, and that’s what we’re standing up fighting for.”
Other forum questions covered tax policy, where Ohtaki took a stance against increasing the capital-gain tax.
“That’s a double taxation,” he said. “To settle that, I do think it’s important to incentivize long-term holdings and to encourage investment.”
Another asked whether candidates who have held public office have any regrets about a decision they made while in that role.
Tanaka, who has served on Palo Alto City Council since 2016, stood firm in his past decisions.
“Due to my diligent approach and research and community engagement, I can happily say that every decision I made I’ve no regrets,” he said.” … In public service, it’s vital to avoid hasty decisions. “My commitment to being well-informed and considering diverse opinions is critical.”
The candidates got through most of the prepared questions posed by forum moderators before protesters in the packed audience erupted in shouting.
The clamor in the City Council chambers went on for about 20 minutes before the forum was able to resume.
However, jeers and cheers from protesters and other audience members continued depending on how the candidates addressed the question of whether they support a congressional call for a cease-fire, for which negotiations seem to be advancing overseas.
“Regardless of which side you’re on, we all here as Americans are coming from a place of wanting to make sure that civilian lives are not lost in the battlefield,” Dixon said. “I think all of us as Americans are praying that these negotiations go well and that the Israeli and American hostages can come home.”
Liccardo expressed similar sentiments.
“One thing I’m confident everyone in this room should agree on is that we want to end the fighting for the sake of 2 million Palestinians who’ve been rendered homeless — 600,000 of whom are on the brink of starvation — and 9 million Israelis, who fear for their lives,” Liccardo said. “I support the continued negotiation and hope and pray that there will be an immediate cease to all hostilities.”
Lythcott-Haims denounced the Hamas attack on Israel but also criticized Israel’s response in Gaza.
“(Hamas) butchered people, murdered people, raped people,” Lythcott-Haims said. “I am also gutted by what the Netanyahu government has chosen to do in response to innocent Palestinian civilians, raining devastation down upon innocents, who now face starvation, disease and surgery without anesthesia, and bombing people in their homes does not set Israel on a long-term path to peace. It is abhorrent what is happening to the innocent people of Gaza.”
Simitian described the war as a path to dehumanization.
“It’s not going to get us to a place where the suffering in Gaza no longer exists,” Simitian said. “It’s not going to get us to a place where folks in Israel feel safe and secure. The United States should be playing a constructive role in bringing peace to Gaza, the West Bank, Israel and the larger Middle East, and that starts with stopping the inclination to dehumanize.”
In another foreign-affairs question, candidates gave their thoughts on whether they would be willing to support changes in immigration policy if connected to continued funding for Ukraine.
“It is extremely important that we continue to support (Ukraine’s) democracy and we stand up against dictators,” Bernstein said. “When it comes to immigration, though, we don’t really need to compromise.”
The crowded race is sprinting toward the March 5 primary elections, known as Super Tuesday. The top two vote-getters will advance to the Nov. 5 general election. Eshoo, D-Menlo Park, is retiring at the end of the year after three decades representing Silicon Valley in Washington, D.C. The district encompasses the South Bay, the Midpeninsula and coastal San Mateo County.
A video recording of the forum in full can be seen here: 2024 Congressional Candidates Forum (youtube.com).
Publisher’s note on the Jan. 31 Congressional Candidates’ Debate
By Adam Dawes, CEO, Embarcadero Media Foundation
Regarding the disruption of Embarcadero Media Foundation’s Jan. 31 Congressional Candidates’ Debate after an hour and 15 minutes of respectful proceedings, I’d like to explain the decisions we made to try to continue the event in spite of the interruptions by protesters.
Given the state of political discourse in the country and especially the current strong divisions regarding the Israeli-Hamas conflict, we anticipated the possibility that organized protesters might attend and disrupt the debate. Meetings were held in the days leading up to the debate with city staff and the police about how to respond in the event this happened. The police made clear that they would not intervene unless there was a physical altercation or an imminent danger to the safety of attendees and advised us to have a plan for pausing or terminating the event if we decided that was necessary.
Seeing as the event was an open public forum being held in a public/government facility, the protesters had a legal right to be present and to engage in the behavior we all witnessed. (The alternative would have been to hold the event in a privately owned facility and hire security personnel who would physically remove protesters. We thought this was not a wise or practical option.)
Although we had many staff members present in the chambers who spoke calmly to protesters as they began and continued their shouting, those individuals would not stop their disruption when requested. Attempting to physically remove all of them would have undoubtedly resulted in an even more confrontational and dangerous situation.
Part of the plan for handling a disruption of the sort that occurred was for the candidates to be escorted from the dais and remain in a room behind the council chambers until the crowd quieted, and then to return to resume. If the crowd would not quiet, we would stop the debate and send people home. The candidates were all aware of this but preferred in the moment to not leave the chambers.
Some people who attended observed me and others speaking with individuals who appeared to be the leaders (or the most vocal) and erroneously assumed that a “negotiation” was taking place. This is not so. We were explaining that the very next planned debate question was on the Israeli/Hamas/Gaza situation and that if they stopped their protest everyone could have the benefit of the candidates’ comments. That eventually did help to quiet things down, but several loud members of the group were determined to heckle the candidates rather than listen to what they had to say.
While removing the protesters seems like it would have been a logical natural consequence for their behavior, no laws were being broken. Our staff was told not to touch any protester or attempt to escort them out by force. So that left our available options as persuasion and stopping the debate.
It is obviously disappointing that the candidates did not have the opportunity to make their closing statements. But I hope the hour and 15 minutes of discussion that took place before the protest provided useful insights into the candidates and their views.
As an organization, we are committed to the idea of live, in-person political debates. Zoom can only go so far in connecting voters with candidates. Events such as the one last night serve an important democratic and community-building purpose. We believe these town-hall style debates can and must continue — peacefully — to be part of the fabric of our community going forward.
Was the forum abandoned before the candidates gave their closing remarks? The live stream ended at that point.
Dear EMF CEO, thank you for organizing and moderating this. It was a fine Public Policy debate. -Audience- Perhaps the format can be changed? Rent a facility (like MV Performing Arts Center Main and 2nd Stage) They may have a non-profit rate. Issue tickets / with legal conditions / to the candidates ONLY. A dias on the MAIN STAGE, and a Second Dias on the Second Stage. Maybe, start on the Second Stage Dias, and during a very early break, move to Main Stage. Make it clear to everyone, audience disruption, voids their ticket contract. (they might be ejected). Make it clear to everyone, as demonstrated, that “live audience” can be easily and quickly Taken Away by moving the candidates to the 2nd Dias along with the moderators.
(un-civil civic participation / results in remote viewing)
I’m sure some small group in EMF can figure this out, better than me!
I particularly look forward to more Public Policy debating moderated by the thoughtful Ms. Morgan.
I would have thought that the solution was to move the debate rather than remove the protesters. Maybe that wasn’t possible at this location, but, riffing on Steve’s suggestion, you could hold it someplace where, if the audience gets unruly, the candidates walk to a different room and you wheel in a video monitor. I don’t really understand what the audience brought to this debate even before disrupting it (this is true of all political debates, the; the audience just turns them into sporting events). I also don’t understand repeatedly cutting off the video feed. For those of us online, it was hard to tell what was happening and whether you were coming back.