Maybe this is just wishful thinking, but I do not believe Kevin Yoder would have voted to send us over the “fiscal cliff” if he thought his vote really mattered to the outcome.
Put yourself in the shoes of our second-term congressman from the Third District.
Yoder’s biggest fear, from a political standpoint, is that he could garner opposition from the far right in the next Republican primary election, by those who already are suspicious that Yoder is more moderate than he lets on. He also has the skinny-dip fiasco to overcome.
Had he voted “yes” on the fiscal cliff compromise, that threat could have been realized. He might have been attacked from the right as kowtowing to a president who refused to cut expenses and who triumphed over Republicans in initiating income tax increases.
In the U.S. Senate, where the fiscal cliff bill passed 89-8, both Republican senators from Kansas, Pat Roberts and Jerry Moran, voted for the bill. But neither has to worry about opposition. Roberts, a staunch conservative, would likely easily beat any opposition in his 2014 re-election bid. Moran does not come up for re-election until 2016 and he, too, has a sterling conservative record and a safe seat.
But here is Yoder, who I believe would not have sent the nation over the cliff, if push came to shove. He already had refused to sign the no-tax increase pledge of Grover Norquist, so he could have voted yes without violating his pledge.
Let’s look at the political reality on the ground.
When the Democratic whip counted noses in the House, he must have known that only 16 Democrats would vote against the bill, out of 188. The final vote was 172-16 among Democrats.
To get to the needed 217 magic number for passage, therefore, only 45 Republican votes were needed.
The Republican whip counted noses and found there were 85 Republicans willing to vote yes, along with Speaker of the House John Boehner.
That put the bill safely in the “yes” column with 40 extra votes to spare. It passed with 257 yes votes.
So, going along with Boehner were his loyalists, retiring representatives, moderates from safe seats, and some die-hard believers in the cause of the bill.
Kevin Yoder knew — and undoubtedly was told — his vote was not needed for passage.
So, what would any reasonably intelligent, astute politician in a somewhat vulnerable seat do in such a circumstance?
Why, he would vote no.
And then he could send out the word to his constituents, which he did immediately after his vote, that he could not support a bill that did not cut spending and which did not address the nation’s deficit crisis.
So, for those who claim Yoder is just another “tea-partier,” because he voted seemingly to send us over the cliff, I would say to them: If you believe that, you do not know much about politics and voting records.
It remains to be seen whether Kevin Yoder will become more independent. That depends on how secure he feels he is in his seat.
After this next election, should he not draw primary opposition and beats his Democratic opponent — if there is one — handily, Yoder will be in a “safe” seat.
When his vote really counts, we should hold his feet to the fire and not to allow him to vote with the extremists.
| Special to The Star
Mark Kind
5 months, 1 week agoThis clairvoyant explanation of Rep. Yoder’s vote is unsatisfactory, especially if it’s true. The only principal driving Yoder’s vote, you say, is avoiding the wrath of the Tea Party. Recent history tells us that’s a fool’s errand: Tea Partiers become angrier with every vote that is cast by legislators regardless of the outcome. This strategy, also pursued frequently by President Obama, demonstrates in both men a sad deficit in leadership skills. If Yoder believed we should not jump off the cliff, he should have voted for the bill, then explained his vote. But if he doesn’t trust himself to explain his vote or trust voters to understand him, he is in the wrong job.
Robert Copher
5 months, 1 week agoA person’s concern for a job and political career should NEVER dictate action. PERIOD. Represent the PEOPLE 100% of the time. Those votes are seen by every American not just the ones in your district. And to say, well this is probably why he voted the way he did, just keeps adding to the speculations and to the mistrust. If he voted the bill down because it was what he believed was the right thing to do (Show no cooperation and disagree with the bill) then I can understand and determine my support in his bid for re-election. I don’t agree but I understand. If he voted to avoid Tea Partiers, or to save his job, or for some other “name of the game” BS that you suggest, I can not understand and he should loose his bid for re-election.
Joaquin X Santiago
5 months, 1 week agoTo summarize: Yoder may not be a Tea Partier but he IS just another politician.
Where have all the statesmen gone?
Steve Alleman
5 months, 1 week agoSo Yoder is not a tea partier, despite the fact that he votes like one, because there are people even farther out on the fringe than he is? Thanks for the explanation.
Andy Sandler
5 months, 1 week agoHow then, do you explain his voting with the Bath Salt caucus against aid for Sandy-hit states? He bounces in more directions than a pinball.
Steve Johnston
5 months, 1 week agoI have been underwhelmed with Yoder’s performance from the minute he reported that he had a negative $90,000.00 net worth. How did we send a guy to DC that was that far under water? It’s easy to explain; extremist, fundamentalist, demagogues have hijacked the GOP in KS. He was all they would elect in the Primary. And the DEMs took a hike.
Ronald Grover
5 months, 1 week agoIt’s called standing up to be counted. As far as I am concerned Yoder did nothing different than Jenkins. By voting no they told me that they favored raising taxes on the middle class and an intent to destroy the family farm and small business by forcing heirs of small farms and businesses to pay a 55% estate tax on any estate valued over $1,000,000.
At some time you must stand for what you believe. Not what is “politically correct”.
John Stauffer
5 months, 1 week agoThe leftwing media has succeeded in demonizing the “Tea Party”. The silent majority who dislike the direction our country is going will have to remain nameless. The Republicans got played by the Democrats. There will be no spending cuts.
Gary Blumenthal
5 months, 1 week agoSteve, so it seems your lifelong pattern of being an apologist for the GOP power establishment continues. You were able to get away with that frequently when your dad owned the paper. It’s disturbing that a more respectable paper like the Star would let you use their paper for your continued sycophantic courting of the power establishment.