>>Pandering only works for liberals...<<
I view pandering as offering an insincere message of hope. For example, when Walker said he viewed Right to Work legislation as a “distraction,” he was pandering to national unions hoping not to drive them back into the Democrat fold that they’ve recently been driven out of by Obama’s inane economic policies.
He offered hope, but his signing of the RTW law in WI today illustrates his insincerity. Still, he offered hope; they have that to justify their eventual vote for him, or more precisely, against the Dems.
Similarly, those in Iowa who will vote for him hoping that he will uphold an ethanol mandate in the future are likely to find themselves disappointed eventually. But many will vote for him anyway, knowing they’re likely to be disappointed in that one regard.
And pandering is effective. For example, note the number of people in here who proclaim that they will never vote for a candidate who refuses to pander to them on amnesty, when every sentient being knows that amnesty, in at least some modest form, will undoubtedly happen. Those people are crying out to be pandered to, although many will vote for someone who refused to do so, regardless.
(Sorry, couldn’t resist...it was just sitting there, begging to be said.)
Reminds me of a quote by Will Rogers: The only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets.
My version would be: The only difference between death and pandering is that death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets.