For the first time in decades, the Maryland presidential primary actually matters – at least for one political party. As registered Republicans head to the polls today to have their say in who will eventually face incumbent President Barack Obama this November, there is one presidential candidate many see as the darling of college students across the country: Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

Indeed, Paul inspires many students on a level unseen since the last presidential election, when young voters turned out in droves for Obama. His visit to this university last week – and the thousands in attendance at Ritchie Coliseum – demonstrated Paul’s support of and reliance on the college demographic. His reluctance to mettle in foreign affairs, especially militarily, is a big draw for students – as is his support for marijuana legalization. Unwavering adherence to small government, individual liberty and non-intervention comprises his set of principles.

But Paul’s zealotry is also a drawback. His just-say-no stance is often sugar-coated as brave and inspiring, but it’s also foolish: This is politics, after all, and a two-party system needs elected officials who are willing to compromise. Congressmen aligned with the tea party movement nearly brought the federal government to a standstill last year by refusing to budge on budget negotiations. It’s one thing to take a stand on a single issue – the budget – but Paul would almost certainly set a record for presidential vetoes, which isn’t exactly a good thing when congressional gridlock is already such an inhibitor.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, meanwhile, rightly deserves whatever Google search results he has coming. While his focus on family values is comforting and sincere enough, the actual values he espouses are highly troubling: As recent developments in this state and New York have shown, marriage equality for homosexual couples is inevitable in this country, and Santorum and his socially conservative peers are on the wrong side of history when it comes to these issues.

Of course, we must not forget former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. This editorial board can’t really castigate those who vote for Paul or Santorum, because such people are obviously drawn to the set of principles those men present – to each his own, in other words. But voting for Gingrich is essentially voting for the principle of egotism. The man has zero chance at winning the nomination, so the sooner he becomes an afterthought, the better.

Which brings us to the frontrunner and likely nominee, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. As this editorial board sees it, Romney is the only candidate who, warts and all, deserves the Republican nomination for president.

Critics argue Romney’s “Etch A Sketch” stance on so many issues is proof the man is devoid of principles, but we see the other side of the same coin as proof of his political instinct. When Romney presided over liberal Massachusetts, he behaved like a moderate Republican because that’s what his constituents demanded. Now that the Republican primary voters demand he brandish his conservative credentials, guess what – Romney spits out some pretty conservative rhetoric. But when Romney wins the Republican nomination (he almost certainly will) and if he wins the general election (unlikely, barring a major Obama gaffe), expect him to drift back toward the middle on every issue.

Unlike the other Republican candidates, Romney seems willing to act based on political expediency rather than his own stringent set of principles. Because we live in a representative democracy – not a dictatorship – that doesn’t sound half bad. If Romney quits pretending he isn’t ridiculously wealthy and removed from the American everyman, we might be able to stomach him. Not a rousing endorsement, sure – but this year’s Republican candidates aren’t exactly the cream of the crop.