Mixing up Empathy with Political Philosphy

Recently Rand Paul won the primary in Kentucky.  (I am sure most of you know this by now.)  I don't actually know a lot about him so I am not going to support him or defend his person.  However I would like to discuss an article I read on the huffington post.  (I am sure everyone knows how much I hate the blogs and articles written specifically for the huffington post.  They are always one sided and spread fud.)

Here is my problem with the article, it is essentially saying that a political ideology that doesn't allow for massive spending for 'empathy' is a bad thing.  This is intellectual suicide.  Political morality is a option not a constant.  Some political philosphies do not state an inherent morality of the government.  (I know I am equating morality with empathy but since ideologies can't think we have to talk about morality.)  So why are people attacking Rand Paul?  Well he is stating things in a way that opens himself up to attacks.  However his ideology is sound.  He doesn't think there is an importance in the government spending money on various programs (I diverge with him in a lot here).  As a person he should show more of his empathy (I am sure he isn't heartless) but on the flip side the media should leave him alone.  Not everyone thinks spending money on 'moral' things is the best idea for the government despite what talkgin heads would leave you to believe.

For instance, Rand Paul said that Obama should lay off BP.  Well he is wrong here, BP screwed up, however he is right that Obama and congress in a populist rage are looking to tar and feather BP.  Here is what Rand Paul is trying to say:

"Without risk there can be no oil.  There is a certain amount of risk in everything and if you want to have the benefits of modern society you have to realize there are consequences.  The government should not be holier than thou when it comes to industry because the warped incentives of government intervention cause in industry to not appropriately account for the risk in business.  For instance the government limits profits of oil companies which cause problems with funding risk.  As such the government should step back and look at its role in prevention oil leaks and enabling oil companies."

Or something like that.  That being said I think Rand Paul sounds like a non-pragmatic Sarah Palin wanna be.  I think he is a bad example of a libertarian.  But I guess time will tell if he can convey his message in a productive manner.  I am betting the media doesn't want to hear the message anyway.