Ron Paul is the Rodney Dangerfield of Republican presidential candidates: He can’t get no respect, especially from the media.

The Texas Congressman is the lone GOP candidate to unequivocally characterize the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq as a colossal mistake. There goes that touchy-feely interview from Brit Hume of Fox News. And Rep. Paul is equally insistent about the need to abolish the IRS, drop out of international trade agreements and stop the push for a national ID card, all of which endear him to the libertarian wing of his party, but which prompt smirks and eye rolls from liberal-leaning reporters and commentators.

A recent drubbing of Rep. Paul came on MSNBC’s morning news show “Morning Joe.” Network correspondent David Shuster grilled Rep. Paul about a comment he had made a few days earlier on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Host Tim Russert had asked Rep. Paul about a comment attributed to him in which he suggested Abraham Lincoln was wrong to fight the Civil War. The candidate didn’t equivocate, but waded right in, saying the conflict which killed 600,000 Americans could and should have been avoided, and noted that every other industrialized country was able to end slavery without that kind of bloodshed.

It was certainly a provocative statement, but when Rep. Paul tried to give it some historical context on MSNBC, Shuster repeatedly interrupted him, smirked, and then tried to squeeze him for a news-making sound bite, which he probably hoped would be even more outrageous than the original statement. Sadly, viewers were not able to determine whether the Lincoln critique holds water or not, because Rep. Paul was not given the opportunity to explain his views, as he was harangued by Shuster with his own Civil War analysis that sounded as if it were cribbed from a seventh-grade textbook.

Whether Rep. Paul, who is a medical doctor and has served two multiterm stints in Congress, is a flake or not should not be determined by TV commentators. Nor should he or his Democratic long-shot presidential candidate counterpart, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, be dismissed on the question of electoral viability merely by his showing in the polls.

The role of journalists covering political campaigns is to understand a candidate’s values, history, views and goals, then articulate them clearly to voters. Pointing out logical inconsistencies, practical problems or reversals of earlier positions is fair game, as is pressing for details about funding initiatives or solving problems such as the Iraq occupation. But ridiculing and deriding Paul for his analysis of a war whose precise cause even historians are still debating disrespects voters and the electoral system.