Will gives you seven instances of Paul Martin and Jean Chretien waffling, I'll give you seven and they'll be 100% Harper.

So Will says the Fiberals changed their minds on removing the GST in 1996, huh. Well didn't Chretien nearly lose his majority (38% of the popular vote) and didn't Sheila Copps resign her seat only to win it back in a by-election within the month over that very issue? I guess that 3 elections isn't enough for voters to have reaffirmed their support for a government whether or not it's a flip flop. So I guess that any reversal by Stephen Harper going back to oh, let's say 1997 should be equally untenable, right?

Let's start out by making two assumptions:

1. Stephen Harper is an intelligent individual, who thinks out the implications of his decisions.

2. Stephen Harper has read the work of people he claims to be acolytes of.

From an interview he did with the Montreal Gazette

Q: Can you name any conservative thinkers that influenced you?

A: I'm an economist by training, so obviously all the classical economists from (Adam) Smith right up to people like (F.A.) Hayek, as well as some of the modern public-choice theorists: people like James Buchanan.

On his pledge to reduce the GST, Stephen is betraying the theories of Adam Smith, who called in the second volume of wealth of nations for the majority of tax revenues to come from the consumption of non-necessity goods. Exempt food, exempt housing, tax most all else. Adam Smith also opposed the imposition of a tax wherein the burden is uncertain and assessed over a longer period. So a tax paid at the register might be preferable to say an annual income tax.

Look, my record is clear: I'm not a centralist. I'm a believer in division of powers between the federal and provincial governments and in provincial autonomy in resources and other matters.

So why would you intrude on the provincial attourney's general with your 'independent special prosecutor' in the mould of Ken Starr?

From an op ed in the National Post

What Albertans should take from this example [Defeat of the CA in 2000] is to become "maitres chez nous."

So Albertans should nationalise their energy companies? That was what the Maitres chez nous campaign was about. Concern over American domination of the Hydro industry.

He said next year in the same Gazette interview quoted earlier:

I wouldn't go that far. There is obviously a role for the state. There are public goods, and there are issues that really are not applicable to market-based solutions. But I tend to err on the side of individual freedom and accountability. I don't worship the marketplace, but it is a proven mechanism for providing the highest opportunities for personal choice and prosperity.

Since a 'maitres chez nous' policy would negatively impact my ability to participate in the energy market, that might be a contradiction, since economists don't view natural monopolies, wherein consuption can be controlled, as public goods. Prevention of global warming, where consumption cannot be controlled, could be considered a public good, however.

Numerous times Stephen Harper has asked, "why aren't Liberals in jail?" Back to the Gazette answering a question on civil liberties:

The distinction that has to be made is, are we talking about civil liberties in terms of coming to a conclusion about who's guilty and not guilty of a crime: how that guilt is investigated, ascertained and judged? And I think we should probably be more sensitive to those kinds of civil liberties.

And for the man that has famously promised a free vote on same sex marriage this is what he said when he left the Reform party whose pro-free vote policy he helped to author:

I'm looking for an opportunity where I'm not bound by a party line.

Quoting the article, "Harper said the NCC's reputation as an organization with conservative and libertarian leanings mesh with his own political philosophy."

Back to the Gazette:

I would not describe myself as a libertarian, by any means.

Or when reiterating in his own words his response to the question whether or not he would run for the Alliance leadership while at the NCC, through an arcticle in the NCC newsletter:

I have zero interest in leading this new entity or any existing party.

To wit: Waffles with Blueberries.