From left: Thomas Coxe (Independent), Ana Luz Acevedo-Cabrera (Independent), Tuka Gafari (Republican), Sean Dougherty (Democrat)
On April 25, 2026, our group, Central Coast Advocates for Peace in the Middle East, sponsored a Foreign Affairs Candidates Forum, and invited every candidate for U.S. District 19. Four candidates attended, including Representative Jimmy Panetta’s Democratic challenger Sean Dougherty. Rep. Panetta declined to attend. (Read more)
The entire event was an excellent, thoughtful and respectful exchange of ideas.
It turns out that candidate debates do not have to be filled with canned, pre-vetted, and predictable statements by groomed politicians. They can be interesting, thoughtful conversations about the state of our world, and various approaches to solving our shared problems.
You can find the video, as well as an edited transcript, below. We urge you to watch the video, or read the transcript. You will not agree with every opinion offered, but you will be stimulated and find thoughtful conversation. The Forum was held at the Quaker Meetinghouse, 225 Rooney Avenue, Santa Cruz, Ca.
The participants included:
Sean Dougherty (Democrat) is running for California’s 19th Congressional District to fight for families, not corporate PACs. A software engineer and Santa Cruz resident for nearly a decade, Sean and his wife are raising their toddler in the community they love. Born in Illinois to a nurse and an engineer, he understands working-class struggles firsthand — including the burden of medical debt and student loans. Sean is committed to ending endless wars, guaranteeing healthcare, and building a just, sustainable future for all. https://seanforcongress.org/
Ana Luz Acevedo-Cabrera (no party affiliation) is a Professor at Hartnell College. She teaches Business, Technology, Physical Science and Engineering. Outside the classroom she is a community leader and organizer in Monterey County. She is also a Board Member at CHISPA Housing and the Foundation for Monterey County Free Libraries. Prior to teaching, Ana Luz was a Software Engineer, an entrepreneur in Silicon Valley, and an Earthquake Engineer, doing the seismic hazard of nuclear power plants. Ana Luz has science and engineering degrees from UC Berkeley and grew up in North Monterey County. https://sites.google.com/view/analuzforcongress/platform
Tuka Gafari (Republican) I was born and raised in California with my parents who immigrated from Iran. My wife immigrated from Iran. The beauty of this area is amazing. We enjoy being part of the community. There is no left or right, but we together need to move forward with differences to become stronger. I want to help represent We The People. http://www.vote4tuka.com/
Thomas Coxe (no party affiliation) seeks to address the root cause of our national issues, corruption. As envisioned by our first President, the country stands divided between just two political parties, leaving politics a zero sum game for sale to highest bidder. Thomas, a lifelong independent, owns and runs a small contracting company in Santa Cruz county. He has three children with his lovely wife, and they enjoy getting out into the beautiful parks and wild spaces unique to California’s Central Coast. https://www.coxeforcongress.com/
Edited transcript
Mimi Edgar
Welcome to the Santa Cruz Friends Meeting House for the Foreign Policy Candidates Forum, which is being put on by the Central Coast Advocates for Peace in the Middle East. We are a diverse group of local citizens who came together almost a year ago to advocate that our federal representatives take urgent action for justice and self-determination for the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank. As the current war in Iran demonstrates, we believe this is central to lasting peace and security for all people in the Middle East.
You can learn more about our group by going to our website. It’s really simple: centralcoastadvocates.org. You can find out all that we’re doing there. Also, if you signed the form many of you did as you came in, you’ll be on our mailing list.
We appreciate you coming this afternoon to hear from four candidates who are vying to replace Jimmy Panetta as the representative from the 19th Congressional District. We expect we will learn a lot and leave here knowing where these candidates stand on issues of foreign policy. I will now turn it over to Rick Longinotti who’s the moderator of this for event.
Rick Longinotti (Moderator)
Hi, welcome everybody. Just to tell you what’s going to happen. We’re going to have questions that I’ll be posing to the candidates. That will last for about an hour and a quarter, and then we’ll have that moment for a break, where some people might have heard enough and leave, and other people can stay and you can ask your own questions. We’ll just take people in order to pose your own questions. In terms of total time, we will be out here by 4:00.
Again, thank you first of all for putting yourselves out there for our community. Nancy will be our timekeeper here, in the front row, and I’ll be giving you a time limit on each question. She’ll ring a bell when you have 20 seconds left and then she’ll ring the bell when the time’s up and at that point just complete your sentence and then move on with everybody. That’s a fair and equal amount of time. Also, I just want to say an important thing. A lot of times when you’re in the audience, you want to show some kind of support or disagreement. Rather than clapping or something like that, we ask that you just show with your hand. Like, if you hear something you like, you can put your thumbs up. If you disagree, just disagree with thumbs down. It doesn’t mean you hate the person. It just means you disagree with whatever idea that they just put out.
OK, I want to, first of all, ask you to introduce yourself. We’ll have two minutes to make just a general statement about yourself before we get into questions about the United States foreign policy. Why do you want to represent us?
Thomas Coxe (Independent)
Hi, my name is Thomas Cox. I’m running to be your Representative in the 19th district because I think that the two-party system has failed. The way that congressmen make their money now is not through their salary but from collecting donations, and they work for their donors rather than their constituents. So, my candidacy is based on two constitutional amendments that I proposed. The first is to publicly fund elections on the federal level to eliminate campaign donations completely. The second is to eliminate the pardon, which I think is self-explanatory.
I also want to thank the Quakers for putting this on and I want to recognize that the Quakers have been a force for humanity and goodness for 400 years. I think that, you know, the anti-slavery movement really started with the Quaker community. And, unfortunately, it may not actually be complete, in a lot of the world as it is. I would like to thank this community for being part of that legacy. So again, my name is Thomas Cox. I’m running on the basis of pursuing independent publicly funded elections so that our representation works for us again instead of working for the donors.
Ana Luz Acevedo-Cabrera (Independent)
I’m Ana Luz Acevedo-Cabrera and I’m running to represent you because I’ve been active in the community for a really long time and I’m always listening to what are the pressing needs of the community. So, my focus areas are on housing affordability, healthcare accessibility, and infrastructure resilience. And a big part of that is because I’m a former engineer. I was both a civil engineer and a software engineer at some point, and also an entrepreneur. Now I’m a professor at Hartnell College. I teach kids science and engineering and entrepreneurship. But a big part of my previous experience being an engineer gives me the focus area of just problem solving.
So, I’m here to look at the issues that we all have, and getting down to how we solve the problem. That’s my approach, just very problem-solving driven. I also running as an independent because I think the party systems have put us in very opposite directions, and we’re getting stuck in the middle somewhere, and not making any progress. So, let’s not talk about the parties, let’s talk about the issues. Let’s solve the problems that our communities face.
So, that’s a big part of it. And the other part of it, too, is we don’t want to be run by special interest groups. And that’s basically what happens with Jimmy Panetta. He’s funded by special interest groups. And that’s a huge risk from my perspective, and from the community’s perspective, because that means that he has to be beholden to special interest groups, not the community’s needs. That’s why I’m not taking any special interest money, and also why I think that we should be getting really strict about how financing happens. So, (turning to Thomas Coxe), I definitely align a lot with what you said. Thank you all for being here and being active in the community, and showing that democracy matters at the end of the day. Thanks.
Tuka Gafari (Republican)
Good afternoon. My name is Tuka Gafari. I’m running for the Congressional district because I have a kind of understanding of what’s going on with government, and failing the people. This meeting right now is for foreign policy and the war with Iran. I have a specialty in this. My father, my mother, and my wife are all from Iran. So, I’ve been there. I’ve been there in the last decade. So, it’s really interesting to see what’s going on. I see this running for office as more educational rather than a fight against opposing parties.
So, when people understand where I come from, what’s happening in Iran, they start understanding what’s going on. And it’s not against Trump, against this president, against the United States. There’s actually more peace that can be created with what’s happening. And, that’s where I’ve hoped and embellished with communications here tonight to help you out, in terms of my background.
I’ve been living here in this county since 2005, and I love this community. I’m no different than anybody else. We love this area. Republican, Democrat, it doesn’t matter. We’re one community as Americans. The reason why I’m Republican is I want less taxes, smaller government, and freedom for people. That’s why I run as a Republican. Thank you so kindly.
Sean Dougherty (Democrat)
Hi, I’m Sean Dougherty and I’m running for Congress because I oppose war in all its forms. I believe that we are on the verge of World War III, if we haven’t already entered it. The world’s three biggest nuclear powers, the United States, Russia, and Chinese China are in indirect conflict in multiple theaters. And, any of those theaters could easily escalate into direct conflict which could quite likely lead to nuclear exchange and extinction of human civilization. Our survival requires an end to war.
Quite simply, now war can take many forms. It can be conventional, as we usually think of it as bombs and bullets. It can be information warfare. It can be economic warfare. And we Americans tend to think of forms other than conventional war as being humane or less risky. But other forms are just as deadly as conventional war. US and European Union sanctions have killed 38 million people in the past 50 years. And, other forms can easily escalate into conventional. For example, when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, that was in response to the United States placing oil embargos on Japan.
That is why I call for an end to all types of warfare and compliance with the UN charter. In contrast, the incumbent Jimmy Panetta has voted to send every dollar of military aid that has been given to Israel in response to October 7th. He is fully complicit in the genocide in Gaza. He has supported multiple pieces of legislation that have waged economic and information war on Iran. And he currently is obliquely supporting conventional war in Iran. I believe this is in large part due to his donors. His largest donor throughout his 10-year career is AIPAC (American Israel Political Action Committee.) Another of his large donors is Lockheed Martin.
We need a representative who has not taken that dirty money, and I pledge not to. I am endorsed by Track AIPAC. You can go to trackaipac.com, and you can see that I have not taken a single penny from the Israel lobby. We need a representative who will represent his constituents, not those special interests. A representative who represents his constituents, not the empire. We need someone who respects domestic and international law. And that is why I’m running. Thank you.
Rick Longinotti (Moderator)
Thank you all. This first question is about American foreign policy and military interventions. The United States had a leading role in writing the UN charter, which prohibits threat or use of force against another state’s territorial integrity or political defense. However, military intervention abroad has been a consistent feature of American foreign policy. The United States has actively intervened to overthrow or weaken democratically elected leaders, often replacing them with authoritarian regimes aligned with what policy-makers consider the United States interests, from 1953 to 1960. Key examples include Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Brazil, and the Congo. More recently, the United States has applied sanctions to weaken countries like Cuba and Iran, has invaded Venezuela, and has now waged an unprovoked war with Iran. The question is, do you believe the United States should respect the United Nations Charter and abide by international law? What approach to foreign policy would you subscribe to? You’ll have three minutes each.
Ana Luz Acevedo-Cabrera (Independent)
I think the UN exists for a reason. So, if they have policies in place that are meant to keep civilization in coexistence, I think we need to go with the UN. They know what’s best in the grand scheme of things. So, I think that’s the initial point. Let’s listen to the UN. There are agreements that have happened for many countries, and the UN has that, and so go with that. As far as foreign policy goes, I understand that we need to protect ourselves as a country and protection is important. But there’s a difference between protecting, and being aggressor and invading. So, I think having that understanding of where protection goes into aggression is a key in foreign policy. We have to protect ourselves first and foremost. If anybody comes and threaten us directly, obviously we have to fight back. But if somebody doesn’t come and directly threaten us and attack us, I think we have to be more strategic about how we handle that.
We have the UN to guide us in how we handle that, and we have to also look at how the citizens are perceiving this, because at the end of the day this is taxpayer dollars. So, this is you guys’ money. How is money being spent, I think, is the question we need to be asking. And, is it spent effectively is the other question that needs to be asked? So, first protection, then anything else, how is money going to be allocated? That’s where I would say I take a very economic-heavy approach to things. Because I think we need to be lean with our money and with our spending, and make sure that we have a return on investment on what we spend on that is in alignment with the values of the people that we are representing.
Tuka Gafari (Republican)
So, what’s interesting about the United States and the UN is the military intervention. And, so far from 1979, they have taken over 52 American hostages in Iran. And the people were cheering to get the new change of government, but they didn’t like the hostage situation, but Iranian government took over controlling its women population. When Reagan became president, the hostage were released. And what’s fascinating is the Iranian government has taken its population of 90 plus million people, and now they’re the hostages today. In 47 years, not one single president has done anything, except for the aftermath, when Trump is actually doing something about it. Obama said himself, I should have helped the Iranian people.
This is not a matter of let’s bomb shoot or kill people. This is a matter of freeing the people of Iran, which is going to help the Palestinians. Remember, they were given the Gaza Strip. Hamas is supported by the Iranian regime, and they’re the ones that are causing the chaos over there. They’re the ones that want the war. The Palestinians are now left helpless. So, you want to help the Palestinians, you want to help the Iranians, Trump’s the only one that’s doing something about it.
The sanctions are very, very important to keep. Interestingly, Trump 1.0 restricted their oil sales. And when Obama was president, you all know, they sent $1.35 trillion of cash to the Iranian regime. That’s what feeds the government there to control the population. Trump tried to curb that. And then Biden came in office, and he opened it back up. So, Joe Biden and Obama both have created a vast amount of wealth and money to overpower the Iranian people. The freedom that they seek. The Venezuelans wanted freedom. The Iranians are now, they want it now. They want it. And they actually celebrate, they take pictures of the bombings of buildings and they’re excited and they call him Amu Trump. In Farsi that means “uncle.” Being called someone in family is a high regard in Iranian culture, and people don’t realize that over here. I wish I can get this message across, because running for Congress is more educational than anything else. So, restricting sanctions to the Iranian regime is the way to go right now.
Sean Dougherty (Democrat)
Yes, absolutely I believe in following the UN charter. That is a ratified treaty, and therefore it is US law and we must follow it. Yes, I believe in following international law. I mean really following it. I suppose in some ways, I feel like what’s unusual about Trump is that he’s not even trying to pretend that he’s following international law. Not even trying to lie to us, like I remember Bush did, getting us into the Iraq war.
As for my approach, first of all, I do not think it’s the United States responsibility to decide who governs a particular country. I think that is up to the people of that country, in almost all cases. If there is an extreme case of, say, a genocidal regime like in Israel, then it’s up to the international community to collectively decide upon a solution, so that the agenda is actually fixing the problem for the people of that country. That’s not what we do. What we do is all about geo-strategy, right? Suppressing our adversaries, weakening China, you know, depriving China of oil, etc., etc. that has almost nothing to do with human rights or democracy etc.
I would also move to prosecute US officials under any domestic law possible. For example, we had plenty of officials in both the Biden administration and the Trump administration that violated the Leahy Law. Let’s prosecute that. We know for a fact, the Leahy Law was violated by the Biden administration. They falsified reports so that we could keep sending bombs to Israel as they committed genocide. I would move for impeachment of any officials possible who have been involved in any of these wars of aggression, including the genocide in Gaza and the war in Iran. If I were elected in in 2026, I would move to impeach Trump, Hegseth, etc…. okay, you know, the list. I see lots of thumbs up. Thank you.
And I would call for an end of all the information and economic war that we’re doing throughout the world. We’re meddling in elections. We overthrow governments in a variety of ways, and we need to end all of that. That’s why I opened my speech with that, because it’s not just about bombs. It’s all these other ways, because these entanglements, all this meddling ultimately gets us to war. How long have we been meddling in Iran? Well, the answer is decades, of course. And as I said before, when there is some kind of intervention with a problematic state, that has to happen through the United Nations. It has to go through the Security Council. And the security council is very problematic right now. Okay, we need to reform it. We need to get rid of this problem of one country holding up progress. And finally, I just wanted to say, “Free Palestine!”
Thomas Coxe (Independent)
The history of the United Nations is constructive, but I would like to take it one step back beyond that to the League of Nations, which was created after World War I. It was drafted by a popular president, Woodrow Wilson, and then failed in the Senate because the United States was starting to become the world’s biggest arms dealer, which we are today. As we progressed through the next few decades, the policy became retribution, and extracting as much as we could from the German Prussian Republic to punish them for this war, when really we should have been focused on re-integration, forgiveness and moving forward.
At the bottom line, there is no way to end the cycle of revenge without decades of peace, without allowing the wounds to heal. The United Nations is a body that is designed to create a forum to avoid these sort of conflicts. But the Security Council having that one party veto belonging to the five most powerful countries has completely obliterated this mission. It turns out that the only international aggressors that feel comfortable creating war are those five veto parties.
I also think that, you know, the USSR doesn’t exist anymore. I don’t think that the seat should have transferred to the Russian Federation. The Ukrainian President Vladimir Zolinski pointed this out and his delegates to the United Nations pointed this out. He asked the members to raise their hand if they voted for admission of the Russian Federation and nobody raised their hand, because nobody did. There was no process there.
The bottom line is that war in this country is a money-making business, and war in this country should only be approved by the Congress, as was designated by the Constitution. We haven’t had a formal declaration of war from Congress since 1942. So, there is Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, a whole host of, you know, millions of lives, that have been cost to this world, in our name, that were not approved by the constitutional process.
Our moderator also pointed to soft power actions prior to these, including money influencing democracies in Iran, influencing them in Chile and other countries. And this is something that we’re allowing to happen to us. Foreign money is coming into our country, and affecting the way that we elect our leaders. And if you look at the process that resolved these situations, Chile had decades of dictatorship. Iran has decades of dictatorship and we need to acknowledge that this process will not end well for us. So, publicly financed elections can help with this as well.
Rick Longinotti (Moderator)
Thank you. The next question will have two minutes each. This question is about support for Netanyahu and the Israeli government. The United States has provided Israel with over $21 billion in military aid since October 7th, 2023, without conditions. To what extent do you believe that we have an obligation to arm Israel, and to tie our actions to Israeli interests?
Tuka Gafari (Republican)
One thing about Israel is that they actually supply of a little bit of stability in that region. And if you did not know this, during the war with Iraq and Iran, Iraq was supported by the United States. And you’re never going to believe that Israel is the one that supported Iran. So, and if you didn’t know this either, the airport in Iran was built by the Israelis. They have good relations. The people here in the United States, around the world, Australia, you name it. They love the Israeli people. They love that they’re helping them out.
They don’t like walking outside with cranes, hanging bodies to be in fear, to walk around, to be instilled by the government, to be controlled. And if you show your hair, if you’re a woman, I’m surprised a lot of women are showing their hair. That’s what it is like in Iran. You have to cover your hair, or you get charged. You get pulled into prison. They can beat you. They can rape you. And they can kill you. And you have nothing to say. There’s no due process over there. The government controls.
Israel helps out in the neighboring countries. They supply gas, water, clean energy to Jordan and Egypt. This is what people don’t realize. The people of Iran want the help. They’re the ones crying out for help. And they asked Obama for help, and they didn’t get it. They asked for Biden for help. They didn’t get it. Trump is at least doing exactly what Obama is actually agreeing with, I should have helped them out, the Iranian people. This is the way you’re going to start creating stability in that region, in the Middle East. You cannot help out the people of Iran to be free, to have a free government, elected by the people, for the people, like we have. And we take that for granted in this country. Then who’s going to help them out? Because no other nation in this world is as great as the United States of America that can help out the people of Iran. They’re great, smart people and I know them. I’m one of them.
Sean Dougherty (Democrat)
Well, Tuka, I admire you for speaking publicly on what you believe. You probably know this crowd isn’t friendly to your ideas. [Tuka nods and smiles.] So, first, I support an arms embargo on Israel. That means not just no military aid to Israel, but no sale of weapons. I call for an end of apartheid, which is to say, establishment of democracy in Palestine. And I think this can only be accomplished through the United Nations and international pressure similar to what was accomplished with South Africa just a few decades ago.
AIPAC and other Israel lobby entities need to be registered as foreign agents, and we cannot allow this lobby to distort our elections, to distort our governance. Our so-called representative Jimmy Panetta is controlled by the Israel lobby. We know that Donald Trump is controlled by the Israel lobby. It seems like our entire government is that way. And I want to make very clear, that I don’t believe I’m being antisemitic in saying this. I’m being anti-Zionist. I do not oppose Judaism. I oppose the state of Israel. I want a democratic region. I want a democratic Palestine or a democratic Israel. I don’t care what name it’s given. It needs to be democratic.
And I think I’ve already said this, but the genocide is driving antisemitism. I’m seeing people in my own political circles that were not antisemitic, and now I hear some really ugly things from them. I don’t want to repeat the things, but it is happening. I know often times that’s a disingenuous accusation but it is happening. I am seeing a rise in it and the best way to end anti- Semitism is to end apartheid in Palestine.
Thomas Coxe (Independent)
The history of Israel is long and complicated. This area is at the intersection of three continents, and going back to 1000 BC there’s been war in this area. Egypt fights the native Canaanites. Alexander takes over the land from Egypt. The Roman Empire takes it over from the Helenistic empire that existed after that. There have been long periods of peace, the last of which was the Ottoman Empire that fell apart in World War I. In the wake of that, the British Empire came into the area, conquered Jerusalem during World War I and aided in this development of a Jewish ethnic state. This resulted in displacement of a lot of people in the Palestinian area and much of this was facilitated through the tax code and through violence. These people were dispossessed of their land. But I think we need to move on. I don’t think that acting like a return to the pre-1937 boundaries is the solution here.
The Oslo Accords were a step forward. There was a realistic process to create a two-state solution. Unfortunately, the Palestinians elected by a slim majority Hamas in 2006 and their slogan was death to Israel. And they never had another election after that. Hamas with their slim majority managed to snuff out democracy in those regions. I don’t believe that we should cut off Israel’s ability to defend themselves, but I don’t think we need to give them aid to help them expand their borders and displace these people further. If we allow this state to develop an economy that people can take pride in their lives and have security for themselves and their children, then there can be peace. If we continue to give weapons to a country that wishes to expand its borders, there will not be peace and we have a hand in that.
Ana Luz Acevedo-Cabrera (Independent)
I can definitely relate to what you said. I think, again, from an economic perspective, we need to separate the different pieces, right? I think there’s something to be said about the challenges that Iran is facing, like the actual people, not the people in power but the people that are suffering. So, I want to acknowledge that that’s the source of concern. I also want to acknowledge people in Israel and their history and their struggles. I also want to acknowledge Palestine and their history and their struggles. So, Ithink we need to look at it from a humanitarian perspective. So how are people suffering? Where is the healing happening? And how can it be solved without the need for war, without the need for more chaos?
Because really it takes up so much money. The part of me that’s super fiscally conservative, like wars takes so much money. How can we be solving wars, without investing so much money? I mean, without having to rely on so much gunfire, without having to rely on, just the chaos of what’s happening all over the world. So, I think we just need to separate things. We need to separate that, yes, Israel is an ally, but we also need to separate that there’s a difference between helping on the humanitarian side and then helping on them, you know, having weapons to go and hurt someone else who may or may not be attacking them.
So, I think we need to look at how we’re allocating funds. Where is the money going, and who is it benefiting? Because you have to trace where the money is going. Is it going to fund people that are going to benefit from war? And, you know, and also like the people themselves. How are we, how is the money helping solve the issues? Not how are they making it worse. So, I think we need to look at where the money is going.
Rick Longinotti (Moderator)
Thank you panelists. So, we did invite Jimmy Panetta to come to this event, and he’s not here. We anticipated that he might not be, and so we just wanted to represent his record. So, Panetta on several occasions has voted for military aid to Israel without any conditions in those pieces of legislation. He has refused to co-sponsor to Block the Bombs legislation, which does put conditions on military aid to Israel, despite the advocacy by many of his constituents.
The next question is just a one minute answer. The state of Israel has been accused by the United Nations and humanitarian and human rights organizations, including Jewish humanitarian group B’eth Salam, Israelis for Human Rights, and the accusation is perpetrating the genocide of Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip. In January of 2024, South Africa petitioned the International Court of Justice to charge Israel with genocide, citing the mass killing of Palestinians in Gaza, the destruction of their homes, and the blockade on food and water and medical aid. At that time, Representative Panetta signed a letter to the Secretary of State Anthony Blinken to, “express our disgust” with South Africa’s filing of a “grossly unfounded case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.” So, the question is, do you agree that Israel has carried out a campaign of genocide in Gaza? Why are we not?
Sean Dougherty (Democrat)
I think my position on this has already been made perfectly clear. So, I’d like to respond to something that was said in the previous question by another candidate. The Iron Dome is not defensive, when Israel is committing a genocide. That’s like giving a bulletproof vest to a school shooter. That is not defending someone.
Thomas Coxe (Independent)
I think that the tactics that we’ve seen repeated over this cycle of conflict is definitely showing a genocidal intent. They are trying to displace these people from this last sliver of land and take it into possession. The state of Israel desires to be of one religion and of one ethnicity, which implicitly says that no others will be welcome. As this war in Gaza progressed, they destroyed the cities in the north, pushed everybody to the south, then said, “Go to the north and we’re going to destroy the cities in the south.” There is no other reason to destroy all this infrastructure, except to displace these people. I do not believe that we should be aiding in this. I do not believe that we should be supplying weapons to this. I do acknowledge that Israel has had to fight for its existence. I am not saying that we need to be the ones to foot the bill for that. I feel terrible about being the ones to foot the bill for that.
Ana Luz Acevedo-Cabrera (Independent)
I always think about the execution. There’s a history of healing and pain, but how you execute from that point forward, is about you, not about what happened in your past. So, you have to separate the past from the present. So, the past was rough, but in the present they’re being rough to others. So, I think that’s what we need to acknowledge. If anything, they should have learned from their past is that it wasn’t handled properly. So, they don’t need to go off and do the same thing to someone else. That’s the history of pain that gets propagated from generation to generation. So, that’s how I focus on it. And, I don’t think Israel is handling it well. I think we just need to take a humanitarian approach and understand what’s going on, and help Israel heal and help the people around heal. Because there’s too much destruction happening there, and it’s not doing anybody any good. So handling it with respect, I think, is the best way to do it.
Tuka Gafari (Republican)
It’s very interesting that people are saying that Israel is stopping this, but what’s going on is that Hamas is smuggling weapons through these networks, and that’s why they’re trying to put a stop to it. And these tunnels are being dug underground to pass weapons, missiles, ammunition, and stuff. So, it’s not a matter of food, but they label it that way. This is a propaganda issue. This is why they do this. Hamas is very good at showing out videos to people to show, hey, we’re the victims. Did you know in 2005, Israel evacuated all its Gaza settlements? So, Palestine, the people, had Gaza strips. But the problem was in 2006 in their elections, Hamas won. Hamas took over, and they scored a victory in their elections. So they ceded full control of Gaza. Now we as Americans, we also did the same thing in Cuba, the missile crisis. So, a neighbor next to us, we were concerned. And so is Israel. They’re concerned too. And Hamas has taken over Gaza Strip.
Rick Longinotti (Moderator)
Thank you. So, the next question is one minute each. The United Nations Relief and Works Administration, known as UNRWA, has provided aid to Palestinians since 1949. It is the most highly equipped agency to deliver aid due to its infrastructure and employment of 13,000 people in Gaza. In 2024, the United States banned funding for UNRWA in response to allegations that Israel made, which were proven to be unfounded. At that time, Senator Chris Van Halan stated, “Denying funding for UNRWA is tantamount to denying food to starving people. To punish over two million innocent people is not just misguided, it’s unconscionable.” In this last December 2025, Israel banned an additional 37 organizations from providing humanitarian aid to Gaza. So the question is, if you’re elected, will you co-sponsor the UNRWA Funding Emergency Restoration Act, and make US aid to Israel contingent on lifting the ban on UNRWA and the other international organizations?
Thomas Coxe (Independent)
I would absolutely make any aid to Israel contingent upon the way that they treat the Palestinian people that are under their control. UNRWA specifically, you know, decades-old government agencies have a really good way of resisting audits. So, if there is some maleficence in there, I would not at all be surprised. I think that lifting a blockade and providing food aid is absolutely essential. I I think it’s also essential to make sure that that aid is not under the control of the militant group Hamas that continues to perpetuate the cycle as well. So, I think that if we do restore aid and we do restrict or we do make aid contingent for one on the treatment of the other, we have to have an independent agency that’s accountable for making sure that aid is delivered. I don’t think that this UNRWA agency is particularly accountable. Though the moderator did say that the accusations were unfounded, there were individuals that were convicted or at least shown to be involved in both Hamas and UNRWA. So you have to untangle that web, but the people the innocent people on the ground need to be treated well.
Ana Luz Acevedo-Cabrera (Independent)
Thank you for saying that. I definitely with much agree with that. If it’s humanitarian, the answer is yes. But how we execute it makes the difference. So, where’s the money going? What are the organizations that are carrying out the humanitarian aid? I think that’s where we need to look at. You took an auditor approach. I think that makes sense. Audit makes sure that it’s money well spent to help people and that it’s not ending up in the wrong hands. Actually, what happens in many parts of the world where we send aid, and it ends up in the wrong hands. So it’s not a good return on investment to do that, if we don’t have that guarantee. So, I think that’s where we can use a lot of the intelligence. What are the good organizations that we can collaborate with that are going to make sure that food and aid is going to get to the people that need it?
Tuka Gafari (Republican)
As Americans, we’ve always come together to help people around the world. So for food and aid, yes, for sure. That’s from our hearts. That’s what we always do. We’re Americans. But I’m not sure why it’s being blocked. If there’s weapons in the box labeled as food, I don’t know. So I’d have to look further into that. Again, I say yes for the food. And I say as Americans, we can, we have, and we should, and we will help anyone around the world. We’ve always done that.
Sean Dougherty (Democrat)
I apologize if I haven’t been very nuanced and I’m kind of shouty. I feel very deeply about this. I’m very angry. I feel like I am not being elected by the people here to go persuade the American people to turn against what Israel is doing. They’re already there. My job is to go and fight against the powers that be that are resisting doing the right thing there. So absolutely I would support UNRWA funding. The first two letters in UNRWA are United Nations. You cannot find a more objective body than that. That’s the best we’re going to be able to do. So, the funding has to go through UNRWA. The humanitarian aid must go through UNRWA. As far as other aid to Israel being contingent on what funding, I don’t think that should be controlled by the US. It must be controlled by the UN. The US cannot be trusted to make such an evaluation.
Rick Longinotti (Moderator)
So, this question is about the West Bank violence, and what can we do about it? For decades, the United States has supported UN resolutions that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal and must be stopped. The West Bank is home to more than 3 million Palestinians. It’s been under Israeli military occupation since 1967. In 2024, the International Court of Justice declared this occupation to be in violation of international law. Palestinians are subjected to regular raids, destruction of crops, home and school demolitions, and physical attacks coming from both the Israeli military and Israeli settlers with no impunity. There’s a Ceasefire Compliance Act of 2026. It states that if the current ceasefire in Gaza is broken, or Israel attempts to annex the West Bank, US military weapons may not be used in Palestinian territories. The question is, would you co-sponsor the Ceasefire Compliance Act of 2026? And what can Congress do to stop the violence in the West Bank, the displacement of Palestinians, and the expansion of Israeli settlements?
Ana Luz Acevedo-Cabrera (Independent)
As far as what we can do, I think we can use technology. There’s got to be a way that we can get in there and have different security stations that have cameras, that have ways to track who is causing or inflicting pain on someone else. I think if we can use technology to sort of become a vigilant of that area, I think that would give us the information as to what could be done, to who do we need to hold people accountable, right? Because at this point it’s such a big issue that it’s beyond what Israel or Gaza or anybody, and that that’s where the UN comes in, right?
So, the UN is supposed to be an organization that takes a step back and look looks at things broadly. So, if we have the technology to see what’s going on there and to identify who are the aggressors, then the aggressors need to be put in check. And, so I think that’s where the UN can step in. And I think we need to be collaborating with the UN more to be stepping into those positions, because at this point it really is comes down to like kind of like when you think about your neighbors, right? You have your house. They have their house. There’s a line there somewhere. And so, if there’s security cameras around, if there’s a way to have technology involved to see who’s causing, you know, trouble, then the police can come in and take the people that are causing trouble. Because there’s a lot of innocent people on both sides and then there’s troublemakers, and so we need to identify who the troublemakers are and get them out of the picture to bring more peace to that area.
Tuka Gafari (Republican)
It’s interesting. Sometimes we just have to take off our rosy glasses and look at the truth of what’s happening. Forget who’s president. Forget who’s in leadership right now. But there have been many peace deals have been done and brokered in the last year and this year between Thailand and Cambodia, India and Pakistan, Israel and UAE, Bahrain and Sudan–they’ve all been brokered by our current president. And the 2026 ceasefire agreement is done by President Trump right now. Yes, I support that. Not because it’s Trump, because it’s peace. So, we always want peace. Look at the history and look who’s doing things, because I have not seen much done in the past. And this is nice that we’re getting more and more peace deals done currently. And as long as we keep fighting it, we’re losing out to create more peace. And that’s what we need in the Middle East. That’s what we need in Iran.
Sean Dougherty (Democrat)
So yes, I would co-sponsor that ceasefire legislation. As far as how to go about resolving the situation, I would want us to work through the United Nations Security Council, and we need to get the US to stop vetoing every single reasonable peace resolution that comes through the Security Council. And that kind of sounds pie in the sky, but ultimately it’s going to have to be through something like that, an international body like that. It cannot be the United States. We are not capable of neutral arbitration in that conflict. We are a co-belligerent. So, we’re going to have to get some reasonable people in the security council and I don’t know maybe that’s going to take until 2028. But I think that’s what it’s going to take.
Thomas Coxe (Independent)
I think that the West Bank settler activity is another example of a country trying to push its borders further back. This is antithetical to peace. We all can improve our lives, if we focus on our lives. If we’re not engaged in revenge, and this endless cycle of reprisal and revenge will never stop. If we are going to provide any aid, we should support a legalistic framework to target the people that are perpetrating these actions and prosecute them, rather than picking one side or the other in this conflict. Unfortunately, these people, the West Bank settlers, are getting state support. So, this would mean sanctioning the government of Israel. I think that this is absolutely appropriate. I think that, you know, a slow invasion is still invasion, and it is not without violence, and it is directly displacing people from their property. It may not be as catastrophic as we see in the cause of Gaza Strip, but it is absolutely an invasion. We should not be supporting it.
I would support, I haven’t read the details of this draft legislation, but it sounds on the right track. The United States is also not a member of the ICC (the International Criminal Court.) The Israeli government is allowed to come to petition us for whatever aid they want, without fearing accountability, because we did not join the Hague convention. We actually passed a law during the run-up to the Iraq war that said if the Hague tried to hold any of our own soldiers, we would invade the Hague and we would try to free our soldiers from accountability, with violence. I would support joining the ICC because this seems to be a force for peace in the world. And that would start on this legal framework that I am advocating.
Rick Longinotti (Moderator)
Thank you, candidates. Just to catch up with Jimmy Panetta’s record on humanitarian aid. In 2024, Panetta voted to ban funding for the UN refugee agency. And most recently in January this year, he voted to continue that ban. And, as far as what can Congress do stop violence in the West Bank, the displacement of Palestinians, and the expansion of Israel settlements, the very first press release that Panetta issued when he was elected and in office in 2017 was to sign on to a resolution that criticized the Obama administration for allowing a resolution before the Security Council of the UN that called on Israel to stop the settlements in the West Bank. Apparently, Representative Panetta did not align with the Obama administration on that.
Next, a question on campaign finance. This will be two minutes each. How do you expect to fund your campaign? Would you accept money from any political action committees? And if so, which ones?
Tuka Gafari (Republican)
Well, I come from a broad range of jobs. I’ve been a union man. I’ve also been a white collar. So, I’ve worked in high-tech. I’ve worked on the railroad. And I also do real estate. So, got a wide variety. Now, if there’s any group that funds or want to donate money, they can donate on what I stand for. They’re not going to change my vote or what I understand to help the people. And that’s everybody, not just one side or the other. Because we as Americans, it doesn’t matter about left or right. We are all together in one nation together, in one community. Half my friends are Democrat, half of them are Republican. And same with my neighbors, even my Democratic friends. One of them is very liberal. He said, “I would vote for you if I could be in your district.” That’s a good compliment, because I would try to find solutions to help everybody, not just one side. So any funding would go towards a campaign to help everyone, not just one group, one organization or one industry. It’s for everyone as Americans.
Sean Dougherty (Democrat)
This is something that I care a lot about. If you go to my campaign website, you’ll see maybe the first screen shows my pledge that I will only take clean campaign money. That means I’ll take I will not take money from corporate packs. I will collaborate with super PACs. I will take money from local organizations like Santa Cruz for Bernie, which I have done. I will take money from individuals. I will take money from union PACS. I will not take money from foreign lobbies. I suppose that’s not even allowed, although I guess we all know that there are some loopholes.
Thomas Coxe (Independent)
As of today, I’ve taken less than $1,000 in donations. I am really hoping that my message is different and radical enough that people will actually talk about it. The root of all evil in this country is campaign finance contributions. In my opinion, we need publicly financed elections. So, the Supreme Court opened this door to unlimited campaign contributions with the Citizens United decision, and the only way to close this is with a constitutional amendment. They have expressed that they are extremely skeptical of Congress’s ability to regulate elections. They might not be wrong. We can try to pass a law, but I don’t believe that it will stand up to the current Supreme Court. If I do survive this primary, I will be facing likely a campaign against Jimmy Panetta, who has over $4 million in his campaign war chest. So anyone who seems to want to oppose Jimmy Panetta and might help me get my message out, I would not mind taking legal money. The process has a ton of holes in it. The Mueller report showed guilty pleas from foreign nationals who were bringing money into this country to support the Trump campaign. They were convicted. They went to jail. This is something the United States has engaged in in other countries around the world. It has not served our interests well, and it did not serve their interests well. We need to tighten this system up. If we want our voices to count, if we want this radical experiment of American democracy to continue, we got to close that door. It has to be ideas. It cannot be dollars. People want to make money. People are good at making money. If we don’t tighten the rules up, they’re going to keep doing it. Thank you.
Ana Luz Acevedo-Cabrera (Independent)
Amen. There’s definitely a lot of alignment here for this one. Yes, we need to put a cap on how much money people are allowed to fundraise, depending on what race they’re having, because obviously running for Supervisor is very different for than running for Governor. So, we need to make those distinctions. But there needs to be a cap on what people are allowed to fundraise. And ideally, it would be public-funded, like you said. But how long is that going to take to achieve? That might take longer. It might be easier to first put a cap on it, and then get it to be public funded. So whatever it takes to move the needle in the right direction. I also agree with what you said that right now I only take money from community. I was very specific about that because I didn’t want to be influenced by any special interest or feel like I have to owe anything to special interest, because that’s the root of all evil in democracy.
But I do recognize in the off-chance that one of us makes it to compete against Panetta, that he has a lot of money. Now it shouldn’t the reason that we should feel any less capable of taking on that fight. But I do recognize that at that point if there are groups of people that want to pool in money together, but that money has to be money that is in alignment with our values. Not that something like what Jimmy Petta has which is getting funded by Israel and other things like that. So that is to the extent that I would consider any kind of pool of money, but even then I’m still skeptical that we need to raise that much money to be honest. Because nowadays with social media, nowadays with technology, you can spread the message pretty widely without needing much money. So that’s why I’m not concerned that he has $4 million. I’m more interested in how we’re going to put our message out there and get it to as many people as possible in the least amount of money that it requires to take that.
Rick Longinotti (Moderator)
Thank you. The last question before your closing statement is on US nuclear weapons policy. The US is currently investing one and a half trillion, with a T trillion, dollars to so called modernize our nuclear weapons. What is your position on US nuclear weapons policy?
Sean Dougherty (Democrat)
Well, I certainly don’t support growing our arsenal. We need to be dramatically shrinking it. Something like 150 nuclear explosions could end humanity, because of all the dust that it kicks up, right, and you have a nuclear winter, and then the plants don’t grow, and then we all die. So, what I would aim at doing is getting the total global arsenal down below 150, just as a baby step. Okay, right now we’ve got approximately 6,000, and Russia has even more than that still. Right? So let each country keep their nukes, okay. So that they’re not afraid that they they’ve lost their strategic dominance. And get it down below 150, and then we can start shrinking down even further till we get to zero. And that would take a long time, but that’s ultimately where we need to get no nukes.
Thomas Coxe (Independent)
I’m running for Congress. I’m not running for president. So, I feel comfortable saying that the needs of this district are not served by nuclear weapons, and that we should ban nuclear weapons. We should not put any more money into development of nuclear weapons. You know, maybe on the off chance that achieves a majority, then we might have to make a realistic consideration about what happens if we disarm. But let’s push that extreme side of the agenda for a while. Let’s say no nuclear weapons. Get rid of them. We can use soft power as hard as we can. We, you know, I’m also in support of alternative energy sources. So, I think that if we sanction the major energy source of Russia into submission, and take their nuclear weapons that way, that’s fine. I think if we restrict trade with China into them will being willing to cede their nuclear weapons, that’s fine. A congressman is not going to have the kind of influence over this that you might wish they would have. But I would represent my position, which is that a world without nuclear weapons should be our goal.
Ana Luz Acevedo-Cabrera (Independent)
Yes, I understand that. I will say, though, growing up, my parents had my sister and I do taekwondo, not because they wanted us to fight, but because if the chance that we were ever in a position where we had to defend ourselves, that we were capable of defending ourselves. So that’s why I did many years of taekwondo. So yes, in a perfect world, we wouldn’t need nuclear weapons. And yes, in a perfect world, we want to bring it down a notch. But I also want to be realistic that even if we put sanctions and even if we do all those things, our own government’s going to agree to it, the reality is it’s probably no.
So, it really comes down to, from a perspective here in the US where we are, do we need to be investing more money in that? Probably not, because we have other bigger and more pressing needs like housing affordability, healthcare accessibility, infrastructure resilience. So I always put it against where is the money going and where do we need to be allocating funds? And the reality is there’s more pressing needs to be that need to be addressed before we put money in nuclear weapons. So that comes first and foremost. But the second reality is that we also need to protect ourselves. But we need to be strategic about how we do that, and where we put our funds. And so I’m just recognizing and acknowledging that we need to protect ourselves, but the money needs to first address all of our basic needs. Because if we’re not addressing our basic needs, then we might survive in a very like rough way, but how are we being successful? So, we need to take care of our people first and foremost and all of our needs. And if there’s any money left over, we can put it into the protection category. But there’s different ways to protect that may or may not include nuclear weapons.
Tuka Gafari (Republican)
It’s interesting that the question comes up because everybody here doesn’t want any nuclear weapons. And I understand that. I don’t either. I don’t like it. It’s not something that we want to have. But yet, everyone supports the fact go against Trump, stop bombing Iran. They don’t want to bomb Iran. But Iran wants nuclear weapons. They even publicly say, they announce it, we want to nuke the United States of America. We want to nuke Israel. But yet, you don’t want to have any kind of nuclear weapons, in case of any adversaries like other countries. And Iran wants to develop it. They want to bomb the United States of America. It’s public information. And if you have not been to Iran, if you’ve not walked around the buildings downtown to go to a restaurant to eat, you will see images, posters saying Death to America, death to all of you. And that’s not right.
I’m born here in America. I love this country, and I want to protect this country. We do need security. And the nuclear weapons we have, they do need maintenance. I don’t know how much. I don’t know how much it’s going to cost. I don’t have that information exactly. But do we need to spend excess amount of money? No, we don’t. But we do need to maintain what we have or decrease. I’m agreeing with that. But there are other countries in this world that have nuclear weapons and they will not hesitate to use it against the United States of America. One nuclear bomb will ruin your entire day. And about approval by Congress that Trump needs to get approval before bombing Iran. It was a rescue mission. It’s not a bombing or a war. The people begged for that for years. They’ve been begging for years. A thermos-nuclear exchange will take 27 minutes from launch until a city is gone. Why is it okay for Obama to drop thousands of bombs against Libya and Afghanistan and other neighboring countries? And Nancy Pelosi said immediately when someone asked to get approval, no, he does not need approval. Flat out. So, let’s think about our military, our weapons, and how to protect the United States of America and keep peace around the world.
Rick Longinotti (Moderator)
Just to represent Jimmy Panetta on this one. If you go on Peace Action website, it keeps track of votes of members of Congress. Panetta voted against reducing the number of existing nuclear missiles. He voted against eliminating the development of new nuclear missiles, and against reducing Pentagon spending.
So, we’ve come to our last question of the forum. And that’s a closing statement for each person. Two minutes, please.
Thomas Coxe (Independent)
Thank you all once again for attending. This country is in crisis. This country has been in crisis for a long time. The constitution is not holding up. We are supposed to have a declaration of war from Congress before we engage in hostilities on foreign soil. We are supposed to have an executive branch that respects judicial orders. That’s a really old one. That one has been around for 180 years, that crisis, and we have not resolved that. The only way that we’re going to get this back on track is if we’re willing to fix what’s wrong. And right now, the issue is that our representatives, Congress, the major check that was put in place to restrain the executive, does not work for us. It works for the big donors. The parties themselves, the Republicans and the Democrats work in service of the big donors. I hope and Ana Luz hopes that we will be among the first Independents ever elected to the United States Congress. It is a long shot, but we’re not going to get this solution from the Democrats and we’re not going to get this solution from the Republicans. That’s all I have to say. Thank you very much.
Oh, let me actually just tell you about my day. All right. I’m a contractor, right? I got up today and I finished a job that I was ran out of earlier this week. When I got here, I washed the mud off my hands and I came to talk to you people. I like my life here. I wouldn’t be trying to run for Congress if I didn’t think that this is a crisis point. And I like I said, we’ve been in crisis for a long time, but I think people are aware. I think people can see it in a way that they could not see it before. So, I’m hoping to give those people the option on the ballot to support our solution. And that’s what my candidacy is about. Thank you for your time.
Ana Luz Acevedo-Cabrera (Independent)
Amen to all of that. So, I came from a beach cleanup, so I also relate to my shoes are not the ideal shoes. They’re a little dirty and rough, but that’s what you do for your community. So, I’ll say this. We need to get dirty money out of politics. So, it’s important that you pick one of us at the Forum. Our ideologies might be slightly different and that’s okay. You can see what’s more in alignment with you, but it’s important that it’s one of us and not the person that’s currently taking this position, that’s taking all the money from all these PACS. So, I just want to start with that.
Second of all, I think you saw that for me, it’s always about questioning where the money is going. I’m currently a board member of two nonprofits that are doing a lot of social impact work. But I’m there also questioning where the money is being allocated, because social impact is good, but without the proper allocation of resources, we’re not being effective. So I’m always questioning where the money is going. And I think if you think of me as a representative to serve you, you will know for a fact that I’m going to be questioning money and how we’re operating this country. Where is the money going? And how we’re getting a good return on investment for the people, that is their taxpayer money, because we need to be more respectful of you guys’ money. Our money, our collective money needs to be doing good for us first, before it does good for anybody else. So, this country comes first and our people come first.
And my approach obviously, being an engineer, is I’m going to be questioning how we do things. Not just from the financing aspect of it, but from the engineering aspect of it. That’s actually what called me to do this, because what happened with the Moss Landing power plant fire. I was, like, if an engineer was in that position they would have at least question why is there 100,000 batteries sitting in one place? Like all that risk compounded? Like that’s crazy to me. That’s a no-brainer. But maybe we just need to have people that have a broader background than just law. So that’s what I’m here to say. If you can, you know, take me as your representative, I will make sure that your money is well spent and I will make sure that we’re questioning everything and that things are headed in the direction they need to go. Thank you.
Tuka Gafari (Republican)
As I said from the beginning, it’s more educational than anything else. The people of Iran want our help. And make no mistake, you would wake up on Saturday morning and by Sunday night 40,000 people–San Francisco is only 55,000 people–that’s how many people were slaughtered in Iran by the government because they spoke out. They showed their hair. They want freedom. They’re begging for what we have here. If you like freedom here, they don’t have the laws like they do. The government just flips the switch. Thanks to China. No cell phones, no telephones, no internet, nothing. These people are in the dark. We need to help them out as best as possible. Iran is now currently invaded by Iraq, Afghanistan, and Turkey. They’re coming in there with their flags and machine guns to suppress the people. This is what the government is doing over there in Iran. I know better than anybody else on this group. I know we’re great people here. We all get along. We talk really well with each other. But with my ancestry, my parents, my relatives in Iran, I have a better sense what’s over there. A lot of the images nobody has seen over here. And I don’t want to share them. They’re that bad, of the mutilation of people, to force the government allowing like a 13-year-old girl to be forced to be married to a 61-year-old man. This is not what we want. This is disgusting.
The people there want to be free and away from this regime that’s controlling the people there. I’m really happy that currently, doesn’t matter who’s president, but there’s a Gaza peace plan since 2025 started. And that’s great. We need to have peace over there in the Middle East. Questions were asked, which foreign country do you consider America’s adversary? And it was quoted in 2024 that Iran is not only a threat to Israel, but Iran is also a threat to America personnel in the region. And that’s a quote from Kamala Harris. So Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, they all agree with Trump and Obama. Everyone agrees that Iran is a threat and we need to take care of that. We need to create peace. I want to be up there in Congress and I want to get up there to help out with our leadership to make peace in that area, which will help with the Palestinians and around the world.
Sean Dougherty (Democrat)
Well, thanks everyone for coming out. To me, this is really amazing. I ran against Jimmy Panetta in 2024 and events like this didn’t happen. So, this shows how much concern there is in the community. People are furious at Jimmy, and he should be here. Yes, he should be here. By the way, I would support legislation that makes it mandatory for the incumbent to participate in at least one public forum. The voters deserve to see all the people on the ballot on a platform together, thinking on their feet. It’s hard thinking on your feet, especially if you don’t really like public speaking like myself, but let’s see it. You got to speak publicly if you’re going to be a member of Congress, right? Let’s see it in action.
I’m running as a Democrat. I’m the only Democrat running against Jimmy. We’re in a deep blue Democrat district. If you are opposed to Jimmy Panetta, I am your best bet to get into the general election to challenge him. If you like views that are on the broad left, I think I am the most viable candidate, simply because of that. Also, I’m a nice guy, and I’ve got a campaign. You know, we’ve got people here wearing our campaign t-shirts. We’ve got yard signs, etc. So it’s a serious campaign.
But I’m going to be a fighter. I hope you got that from my comments. You know, it was all off the cuff and, you know, maybe I didn’t use a lot of nuance, because I’m just so angry. I’m going to go to DC and I’m going to fight like hell, and I’m going to I’m going to make people really uncomfortable. And maybe embarrass myself a little bit, but I’m going to go there and fight like hell. I promise you. So, I’m running so that we have representation for us, not big donors, for us, not the empire. And if you like the things that I’ve had to say, please go to seanforcongress.org and come talk to me after this.
[Followed by 25 minutes for audience questions]
Rick Longinotti (Moderator)
Thank you all for coming. And I hope you vote peace.