WILL THE REAL STEPHEN HARPER PLEASE SHUT UP!

During the height of the last Federal Election in Canada; Stephen Harper the Strategist broke his own rule about fixed election dates so he could run against Dion before the man quit or was driven from Leadership of the Liberals (in part because of attacks that Stephen Harper the Candidate had initiated).

He was hoping that Stephen Harper the Leader could get a majority government before the economic meltdown struck and on October 12, 2008, Stephen Harper the Candidate said, “If you don't want a carbon tax and a deficit and recession, the only way to ensure that is the case is to vote for the Conservative party."

Well, the various Harpers got their wish and thank God because although we got the deficit and recession Stephen Harper the Candidate will at least protect us from that awful forwarding thinking, new economy carbon tax!

Of course, almost immediately after the election, the one where Stephen Harper the Leader failed to get his majority despite nearly destroying the Liberals, Stephen Harper the Economist presented his government’s answer to the crisis, a statement that was nothing more than another partisan snipe at the opposition (apparently it was still Stephen Harper the Candidate in control).

And that move quickly resulted in the Opposition coming together and demanding a non-confidence vote with the idea that even a coalition government tactically supported by the Bloq was better than another week of Stephen Harper the Lunatic.

And so, being the “steady hand at the economic wheel of Canada” Stephen Harper the Strategist immediately shut down parliament so Canadians could stew through 8 weeks of economic uncertainly as the markets collapsed, and Canadian business staggered without direction from the government.

But that’s because Stephen Harper the Policymaker’s philosophy on government is pretty simple, whatever America does Canada must conform its policy to compliment because we’re incapable of charting our own course. And with a change going on south of us he couldn’t come up with any ideas until he knew what direction his American masters were going to take.

Apparently though Stephen Harper the Policymaker didn’t remember that we didn’t follow American fiscal policy while Chretien was in charge, which rankled Stephen Harper the Reform Party member at the time. And even though our nation bucked the international trend of over capitalizing their debts by getting our economic house in order and paying ours down while enforcing regulations upon our banks the fact remains that Stephen Harper the Reform party member ranted against the “stifling economic climate of Canada, a defeatist nation afraid to take risks.”

Fast forward to today, where Stephen Harper the Leader is basking in the international adulation as leader of a country that got it right fiscally in the 90’s.

One would think such a person might realize their earlier take was wrong, certainly a smart leader would say “A good idea is a good idea no matter where it came from and so I’m going to be the guy who finds the good ideas and uses them.” But apparently that would be too Barrack Obama-ish for Stephen Harper the Leader.

Which is why, on Thursday, March 12, 2009, behind doors at the Manning Centre for Building Democracy, a conservative think-tank run by former Reform Party leader Preston Manning, our fearless leader ditched the sunny disposition of Stephen Harper the Economic Cheerleader that he’d used a few nights earlier for his “rah-rah-Canada” speech to rip into Conservative ideas, libertarian thinking and specifically the opposition in a way that had even the most ardent of Conservative supporters shaking their heads in confusion.

In fact, Mike Brock, a Conservative blogger who attended the conference, called the speech bewildering. A sentiment shared by most of the people there. But that’s because Reform members aren’t real conservatives.

In 2003, after years of dual memberships designed to engineer a reverse takeover of the Conservative banner, members of the Reform Party (which by that point had renamed themselves the “Conservative Canadian Alliance Reform Party” or cCRAP) finally got the leader of the Progressive Conservatives, Peter “Two-Face” McKay, to agree to a vote on merger of the two parties. There would be local votes, riding by riding, that would select delegates to attend a national vote where the issue would be decided.

As per the PC constitution the magic number needed was 66%, but even with all those Reform members holding PC cards the real number was still only just over 51% Canada wide (although some ridings had as much as 70% support).

The trick put in was this: Ridings would gather and vote but each delegate had to get at least 51% support to be selected. As many ridings had more than 51% pro-merger members the fix was in and for many ridings 100% of their delegates supported the merger. When they finally gathered it came off like a love in.

Since 2003 some disaffected Tories, True Tories as they call themselves, formed a new PC Party even though they were legally barred from using the word Conservative in their title and had to replace it with Canadian. Others limped over to the Liberal camp where they became refugees, a few stuck with the new Conservative party but because the executive of the party is nearly 100% Reform most became political orphans.

Add to this the executive of the party is also the most dictatorial. Refusing to seat local candidates voted by individual ridings because there are a few too many Progressives out there. Instead the executive frequently overrides the democratic wishes of those local assemblies in favour of people the national executive thinks have a better chance of winning.

All this, of course, has been done to ensure the new Conservatives (or neo-cons as some have labelled them) get a majority government in parliament.

Which they can't seem to do.

After four tries now with Stephen Harper the Leader at the helm, one of which was against the effectively demonized Dion, Harper remains a marginal leader in a minority government. And no one in the party seems to have realized he's the weak link holding them back.

But the pressure is getting to the old boy. He’s starting to rant incoherently. He’s shaking hands with Obama one minute while basking in the after glow and presence of someone who is actually popular, and the next week he’s ranting about the mistakes Obama is making.

And you've gotta know you’re coming off the rails when someone like Michel Kelly Gagnon of the Montreal Economic Institute comes away from your presentation saying “If you want to vote for a centrist party, you can vote for the Liberal Party of Canada. They're very good at that.”

Although usually Harper doesn't flip-flop this quickly unless a poll has been taken but maybe what little control he’s had over these personalities is wilting under the intense pressure of being consistently wrong. Oh well, as Poppa always says, "Once a Reform member, always a Reform member."

But as I read the National Papers reporting of Harper’s post-election meltdown I canb't help but think they're being generous by implying there are only TWO FACES to Stephen Harper. They need to go back and watch tapes from various speeches and comments over the last ten years and then maybe they'll see the TEN distinct personalities flashing in front of them like a zoetrope. The man is worse than Sybil and that isn't good for Conservatism or Canada.