You are assuming that the politician you voted for based on that one issue will result in pandering. What if my one big issue was that I wanted to be taxed so more of my money could be handed out to people who don't want to work? I would be voting for Obama then. Does this mean he will be pandering to special interests? -I know, I am splitting hairs. You are just so embedded in your Neo-Lib ideals that you don't even seem willing to look at what's on the other side.
1) I am not voting for Obama
2) By your usage, you don't know what Neo-Lib means
3) What other side are you refering to? I see no substantial difference between Obama or Mccain. That's a fantasy for cultural warriors or Christian nuts.
4) Your hypothetical is baffling as it is divorced from historical reality. If my one issue was personal welfare, if that's all I voted on, and let's say I formed a powerful pro-personal welfare lobby (as opposed to a corporate welfare lobby groups) then yes that's special interest pandering. And sorry to break the news to you, under Bush II entitlement spending increased as it did just about every other president in recent years. So why would you vote for a party that increases entitlement spending? Why?
5) And, again, if a President SIGNS A BILL INTO LAW that bails out a lending firm that made stupid loans, why shouldn't he be held responsible? Your lack of logic on this truly baffling. WHY SHOULD MY TAX DOLLARS go to this?