|
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.
Too bad we missed out on closing statements due to the protests that were allowed to go on for way too long and were not unexpected since they and Zoom bombing have been happening all across the country.
Where was the police presence? The City Manager? Are they deaf?
Didn’t PA just make “belonging” aka anti-hate speech a priority or is that just more unenforceable meaningless virtue-signalling?
A Petaluma reporter who covered the neo-Nazi Zoom bombing by the same group that leafleted Palo Alto has been unmercifully harassed. Hate crimes have doubled in the past 4 years.
The moderators should have stood up, faced the audience and said,” There will be no further protesting within Palo Alto City Hall Chambers. I am asking the police officers present to identify and remove any disruptor who, going forward, interferes with the presentation.” The officers should have removed anyone the next time he/she called out. I remember several years ago a distraught woman being removed for interfering with a Council meeting, and yet this group was allowed free rein to escalate. These protests will worsen; that group will up the ante; there will be violence. They feel vindicated because they successfully sabotaged the candidates. I wanted to hear the candidates’ frank replies, but I imagine the candidates were rattled and afraid to respond because the protestors were so angry. The candidates hesitated repeatedly in their replies.
Our city chambers are deserving of respect; Palo Alto City Hall is wherein Palo Alto’s governance is centered and policy worked out. Protesters carrying flags intent upon disruption should not be allowed in the chamber. The moderators and police should have intervened.
I enjoyed listening to the debate until the pro-Hamas protestors interrupted the proceedings (multiple times). What a shame that constituents were unable to hear the candidates’ views because the moderators did not enforce the rules of decorum in the chamber!
Greg Tanaka working for residents? Yeah right.
Just those residents who are real estate developers.
The protesters should not have been allowed to disrupt the meeting for so long, and the city should have been prepared for their presence. They undermine those who care and seek nuanced solutions, not to mention continually arming MAGA TV and social media outlets with high-quality B-roll.
Jeers and cheers is an understatement. The meeting devolved into a you-know-what show. Rules were spelled out at the onset, but not followed. One female protester was particularly disruptive; her voice is heard many times in the video. Why wasn’t she required to leave? I left a bit early b/c I felt the situation had the potential to grow unsafe, especially given how packed the room was. Kudos to all the candidates for maintaining their composure. Not a good night for EM.
This was held in city hall but not a city event. Unfortunately , violating debate decorum is an arrest-able offense.
Suggestion – post a statement at the entry door stating that anyone that disrupts the program will be removed. Notification before the show starts will protect city from any negative feedback from removing people who are intended to disrupt the show. WE deserve to hear the candidates and they deserve to be able to state their positions without harassment from the few people who are pushing their own agenda. Otherwise it was a good presentation and it changed my mind on a number of people.
Some candidates acted out with odd statements which were a contradiction to their posted positions. Duly noted – they will not get a second chance to be in a political office that I get to vote on. Stress does not always bring out the best in people and good to know who get stressed over subjects that we are not voting on now.
Gennady, why did the Weekly allow a hecklers’ veto to destroy voters’ opportunity to hear what the candidates had to say? I have to say that was a very disappointing way to handle a candidate forum.
I am supporting Evan Low, because he is a young, energetic candidate who will be able to serve this district for decades (as Anna did) will be able to obtain seniority and get things done for us. His record on women’s rights and LGBYQ rights is stellar. He’s not afraid to stand up for what he believes in. He represents the next generation of leaders for California. Take the time to meet him and check out his endorsements which include Reps. Richie Torres and Ro Khanna as well as Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis . Visit: https://www.evanlowforcongress.com/
I know a lot of Palo Altans like Joe. Evan is like Joe but 30 years ago. It’s time to let the next generation of young, dynamic, diverse leaders shine. Vote for Evan Low.
The Hamas faction made a compelling case that they align with those that hate the West, debate, democracy, freedom, and decorum.
I reject their anti-Simitian-ism!
Honestly feel like Simitian is the most qualified by a mile. Not just because of his experience, but also because he always seems to have a really well-run office with staff who are truly concerned with constituents. We need that again in CA. I don’t feel like the constituent services of Senators since Feinstein and Boxer left office meet their standard, especially of Feinstein’s office. I think Simitian will restore that.
I respect the protestors’ right to protest, even if I don’t think it was an effective tactic in this case. I’m happy to have seen the Publisher’s Note, I think that clarifies a lot.
One thing that concerns me is there is a one minute clip of this event going around on Twitter. In it, a bunch of people shout down Julie Lythcott-Haims for condemning Hamas – and they then go as far as to say that Hamas didn’t murder or rape anyone on 10/7 and that the vast majority of the Israelis who died on 10/7 were killed by other Israelis. Just complete denial of facts. How embarrassing for our community.
It’s horrifying to watch how this meeting unfolded. The lack of civility and respect to the candidates, the screaming, the chaos… and most importantly, the lies and denial of historical fact, seems mind boggling to permit. Why allow a platform for such anger, hate and vitriol? Why allow people to have an opportunity to lie about truth, or push anyone into a corner of compliance out of fear and intimidation? Why entertain this sort of behavior at all? It is only perpetuating more hate and divide to allow such amplification of voices to be heard. This behavior does not promote peace, or dialogue, cooperation or negotiation. These behaviors do not stand for the American values of tolerance we hold dear. If you cannot sit respectfully to listen at these forums, and speak when it is your turn, you should not be allowed to participate.
The editor’s note added to the article is self-justifying nonsense. You allowed the spewing of anti-Semitic crap for nearly half of the debate. It was so bad, you had to turn off the video. To say you both knew this was likely and had no real plan that would allow you to cut off the anti-Semitic screaming just speaks to your incompetence and insensitivity to the Jewish community. You thought you could reason with Hamasniks. Now you know you can’t. What did we learn? Less about the candidates than we wanted, and more about Palo Alto antisemites than we had ever feared. Thanks for nothing, bring back Bill Johnson.
The more I think about this is the more angry I get. When the protesters were screaming that Israel had no right to exist, denying the existence of facts such as the rape of Israeli women, and yelling insane blood libel like the IDF committed the massacre on October 7 not Hamas, no one from the Weekly confronted the clear Jew hate but instead weakly pleaded for people to be nice. A Jewish candidate was literally shouted down by an antisemitic mob, and like Chamberlain the editor pleaded for politeness, Simitian gave one of his “Let’s all act with respect” speeches to an angry hate-screaming mob, and very few people spoke out against the clear Jew hate that was shamefully spewing forth from the dias at our City Council. It was disturbing. More people should be mad. There should be an apology by the Weekly to the Jewish community not this nonsense “publisher’s statement.” Duh.
Dear Publisher, Despite being aware of the likelihood of this problem you thought it was “not wise or practical” to hold the debate at a private location or hire private security, nor hold it by zoom. That seems like a pretty bad decision. Not only was the public’s ability to hear their candidates curtailed, but a “victory” was given to the hecklers who were able to disrupt the event and insult those of us who believe in honest, reasoned debate. I hope that despite what you wrote you will either understand that you made a mistake and not repeat it again, or stand down from leading these debates in the future and let another group do it.
I couldn’t agree more with Maize. All this debate did was give those who are pro-Hamas a platform to spew their anti-Semitic hate and LIES. Since the demonstrators advertised their event – https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2024/01/27/18862512.php – CEO Dawes had to know what was going to happen. Did EMF think some controversy would add to their viewership? Why didn’t someone at the very LEAST counter the demonstrators lies instead of placating them? If EMF was serious about wanting the people to hear from the candidates, they should hold a live debate at a donated private venue (Google? Facebook? A law firm?) require people to register, show their ticket, not be allowed to take in signs and be subject to removal if they disrupt the event. EMF owes the candidates and their viewers an apology for wasting their time. And arguably our Jewish community as well for providing a space for the pro Hamas demonstrators lest their subscribers think that was their intent. An explanation doesn’t cut it.
I support Palo Alto being an inclusive community where everyone can feel safe and we don’t get sucked into this disaster of a conflict. I am saddened to hear there were Hamas supporters calling for the elimination of the State of Isreal. Definitely sounds like anti-semitism was very much present at that meeting.
While we have a lot of folks calling for a ceasefire, let’s remember it is Hamas who is currently rejecting the ceasefire proposed by Isreal. Both sides in this conflict have committed crimes against humanity and have lots of blood on their hands. The sad reality is this is a war about land with both sides wanting it all. The majorities of both sides in Gaza/West Bank/Isreal support the bad actions of their leadership.
The only way for true peace is both sides putting aside their desire to have it all and accept a two state solution with peaceful coexistence. The US needs to put pressure on both sides towards this goal. Peace starts with every passionate person looking in the mirror and asking how their side can work towards a long-term peace where there side does not do bad things to the other side.