A Republican can get in trouble for being compassionate

Back when No. 43 announced he was running for president, he described himself as a "compassionate conservative." As we all know, of course, that didn’t turn out to be the case because in this illogical world we live in, it’s dangerous for a Republican to be compassionate, to actually care about the constituents they are elected to lead.

Just look at the most recent Republican presidential debate. The issue on which Gov. Hair took the most heat, especially from No. 1 rival Mitt Romney, was his decision to give college tuition breaks for the children of "illegal aliens." (What was never mentioned during the debate was the fact that 13 other states, realizing the importance of having a well educated population, have done exactly the same thing.) Hair, of course, has never concerned himself with the importance of education — he made this a policy purely for political reasons: Texas has a large Hispanic population. Still, it was the right thing to do. Yet Romney had the gall to say "That shouldn’t be allowed. It makes no sense at all." Hair countered with "If you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they have been brought there by no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart."

Of course, I could argue you don’t have a heart when more than one out of very four Texans does not have health insurance. That’s the largest percentage of any state in the country. What’s the state with the lowest rate? Massachusetts where only one of 20 residents is without insurance. Why? Because, as governor, Romney created a program to cover his state’s uninsured. And that’s the issue on which Hair attacked Romney, calling Romney’s program "misguided."

What a sorry state of affairs we have when compassion is a political liability.