One of the many things I enjoy about writing for Colorado Politics is the near-total freedom my kindly editors give me (Ed: what’s that now?). As a result, I have kind of settled into a comfortable niche, wherein I can comment on big things happening, or I can draw your attention to what may seem to be smaller issues, but issues that are none-the-less worthy of your attention. I delight in drawing your attention to the Out West Round Up and the Trail Mix articles, as well as the “below-the-fold” (an old newspaper reference, dang I’m getting old) stories you might otherwise miss. Think of me as a wannabe Charles Kuralt (yet another old media reference).

And so, this week my eye was first caught by a Trail Mix story about open vs. closed primaries in Colorado, a subject I’ve examined a few times before. Now the new head of the state Republican Party, Brita Horn, has chosen to joust yet again (for the fifth time!) at the open primary system inflicted on the parties a few years back. Remember a closed primary requires anyone wanting to vote in that primary be a member of the political party putting the primary on — Dems vote in Dem primaries, Republicans vote in GOP primaries, and so on.

Now, my regular reader (Hi, Jeff!) may recall I have consistently been in support of closed primaries. It’s rather like you putting on a party in your home but not getting to decide whom you would invite. You spent the money, you organized the event, but gate crashers are welcome by law. And there has been mischief in open primaries before. Back in 2020, a certain orange-tinged president urged his followers in South Carolina to vote for Bernie Sanders, in hopes Bernie would win the primary there, and would perhaps become the Democratic nominee, a person Donald Trump thought was easier to beat than the others running. And it goes both ways. Back in 2012, Michigan Democrats turned out in big numbers to vote in that state’s open primary for Rick Santorum, and man thought far easier to beat than Mitt Romney.

Here in Colorado, after the open primaries were voted in, there was a move in the GOP central committee members (the overall governing body) to just dump the primary entirely and, I assume, use the state convention/assembly (today’s trivia: a convention is held when there is a presidential nominee to pick, and an assembly is held when there isn’t, or at least that is the way it was back when I was directly involved.).

Here’s the thing: I agree with the Republicans (Ed: wait, what?).

I don’t like shenanigans from either side. If we have a primary to, say, pick our mayor, I don’t want a bunch of people from out of town weighing in to try to mess up the results. Unfortunately, “open primary” sounds fundamentally better, and I guess more “fair” than “closed primary,” although it is quite the opposite. I wish Ms. Horn success in this area, but of course, no other. I’m still a Dem.

Speaking of being of one party, can I draw your attention to yet another CoPo story? As in previous elections, the state Republican Party and the state Libertarian Party are again colluding to try to fix an election. Now, I’ve oft remarked we all have a libertarian streak in our political outlook. There are issues that many support, at least to a degree, ranging from things like recreational marijuana to raw milk (really, not kidding, see below) to abolishing the income tax and more. I recall a discussion I had years ago with an extreme libertarian who opposed — and I’m not kidding — the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). He said if we need air traffic control, market forces will create an opportunity, and private companies will pop up to handle the planes. Now, that’s just, well, idiotic. We have roughly 45,000 flights per day in the United States the FAA controls. I cannot imagine the horrors that would result from, say, two competing private companies trying to control the flights landing in Denver. If they both cleared two different aircraft to land on the same runway at the same time, well, let’s just say we need government-controlled air traffic control (socialism, gasp!).

Now, as you likely know, there is a greater overlap between Libertarian Party members and Republicans than is the overlap with Democrats. So, the Colorado Libertarians have cooked up a way they believe will best advance their ideas, from the good to the nutty, by binding themselves to the GOP, and more importantly, the GOP to the Libertarian agenda.

Hope Scheppelman is running in the GOP primary against first-term U.S. Rep. Jeff Hurd, seen as vulnerable to many. Now, if she were to upset Hurd in the primary, lots of Democratic money would flow in CD-3 to support whomever the Dem nominee is. It’s a winnable seat. So, what have the Libertarians and the GOP cooked up?

Well, Scheppelman has signed a pledge if she wins the primary, the Libertarians will not run a candidate against here in that district. That would likely increase her chances of winning significantly. And what did she have to do in order to get this deal? Well, mostly promise her allegiance to much of the Libertarian agenda, and not the best interests of her constituents.

She has bent the knee to the Libertarians on a number of issues, including, it appears, the aforementioned raw milk. Fresh from the cow seems healthy, but back when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration was allowed to do real science, they concluded: “Raw milk can contain a variety of disease-causing pathogens, as demonstrated by numerous scientific studies. These studies, along with numerous foodborne outbreaks, clearly demonstrate the risk associated with drinking raw milk. Pasteurization effectively kills raw milk pathogens without any significant impact on milk nutritional quality.” They went on to note raw milk does not cure lactose intolerance, nor does it treat or heal asthma or allergies. Among other conclusions, the FDA found raw milk has no beneficial bacteria for gastrointestinal health, nor does it build immune systems, and that it’s particularly dangerous for children. But elect Hope, and you might be able to drink whatever you want, and give it to your kids, because, who the heck believes in science anymore.

We live in fraught times. We have the most unqualified set of national leaders in our history, and the upcoming midterm elections will, I hope, be a vital brake to apply to the insanity. Because of the anti-science senselessness of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., we now have more than 300 reported cases of measles in just Texas and New Mexico, far more than the roughly 10 trans kids in school in those states that want to play sports. But guess which this administration is obsessing about? Talk about misplaced priorities.

Back in roughly 1963, I remember getting the polio vaccine. My older brother had just barely survived the illness a decade before, and no one was trying to claim the drop of medicine dripped onto a sugar cube was somehow a political statement. Oh, and I got my flu and COVID shots last week.

I still believe in science. Oh, and fairness. We’ll see who else does.

Hal Bidlack is a retired professor of political science and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who taught more than 17 years at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.