Every time I thank geography for the happy fact that I don’t have to choose between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton — that I live in a country where politics is still a civilized game — some contrived scandal or tribal imbroglio comes along to pop my bubble.

Where to start? Brad Trost — a dark horse in the race to succeed Stephen Harper, if ever there was one — went after some low-hanging fruit recently by calling on former Harper chief of staff Guy Giorno to pay back some of his relocation expenses from 2008.

Now, Giorno is a sharp lawyer and currently a private citizen — and apparently he didn’t much appreciate Trost putting him on the defensive. So he fired back, reminding taxpayers and CPC members, who will choose their new leader next May, about Trost’s travel and per diem claims as an MP — which, like Giorno’s relocation expenses, are also allowed under the rules, but would add up to a much greater sum.

Then, in a move pulled straight out of the Donald Trump playbook, one of them (not sure which) challenged the other to a verbal joust. The ‘debate’ was to have occurred Wednesday on CBC’s public affairs program Power and Politics. I am sure it would have attracted an audience; I’m equally confident it would have added little to a meaningful assessment of what is and what is not an appropriate expense.

Regardless, the spectacle was (thankfully) called off when the two could not agree on terms. Apparently, Giorno wanted and was prepared to give immunity from defamation. Trost claims he did not oppose said assurance. Giorno claims otherwise and Canadians were spared the indignity.

But Giorno is not the only Conservative Trost has in his crosshairs. As soon as former House Speaker Andrew Scheer signalled he was running for the leadership, Trost cried foul. Scheer has considerable caucus support for his leadership bid — certainly more than Trost. But Trost claims that one caucus member in particular, Chris Warkentin, is in a conflict.

In a letter to Interim Leader Rona Ambrose, obtained by the media, Trost questions Warkentin’s “fitness for office” and neutrality. Warkentin is the party’s deputy House leader — basically the House leader’s assistant. Trost claims that Warkentin taped telephone conversations between them over undisclosed topics and threatened to release said conversations.

The link between the last several paragraphs is that Trost claims he wanted to make a Member’s Statement this week in the House — where he would enjoy legal immunity — calling on Giorno to pay back some of the money he received eight years ago. He claims he was blocked from doing so by Warkentin.

So, let’s review. We’ve got a social conservative who wants to reopen the same-sex marriage and abortion debates, and is attacking another social conservative, who is supporting a third social conservative who does not want to open those debates. So, let’s review. We’ve got a social conservative who wants to reopen the same-sex marriage and abortion debates, and is attackingsocial conservative, who is supporting asocial conservative who doeswant to open those debates.

That seems unlikely. It’s my recollection that the whip, not the House leader, manages the Members’ Statements. There is no doubt that in 2013, then-CPC whip Gordon O’Connor blocked MP Mark Warawa from making a statement — but the House leader’s role is generally to manage and strategize the work of the cabinet or shadow cabinet.

Astonishingly, the Trost-Giorno social media war has yet to run out of oxygen. The latest claim by Giorno is that Trost once expensed a $2.60 Dollarama purchase. Giorno also suggested that Trost’s $170,000 salary as an MP is much higher than his market value in the private sector.

Meanwhile, all of this nonsense was taking away media attention from Kellie Leitch, who had been enjoying her status as everybody’s favourite target due to her proposal to test the “values” of immigrant applicants to Canada.

Apparently feeling left out, her campaign manager Nick Kouvalis suggested in a fundraising e-mail that the latest entrant in the CPC leadership race was another one of those “out of touch elites” and suggested that the National Press Theatre was an inappropriate venue for launching a political campaign.

It seems pretty apparent that Kouvalis was referring to Scheer, who did indeed launch his campaign on Wednesday from the National Press Theatre — something Kouvalis claimed amounted to pandering to “the whinging media hordes”. He also accused the nameless “out of touch elite” of attacking Dr. Leitch over her proposal to screen immigrants for Canadian values, an almost universally panned proposal he defended as representing “the view of the vast majority of our members and of the vast majority of Canadians”.

Except Scheer didn’t — the closest he came was some vague comment about the impracticality of policing “what’s going on in people’s minds”. Scheer also acknowledged that he is a social conservative but vowed that if he becomes leader he would not reopen debates on issues upon which the party and the country have decided.

Meanwhile, Deepak Obhrai — a candidate we’ve heard little from so far — launched a video claiming that Leitch’s Canadian values test amounts to “fearmongering”.

So, let’s review. We’ve got a social conservative who wants to reopen the same-sex marriage and abortion debates, and is attacking another social conservative, who is supporting a third social conservative who does not want to open those debates. All of the leadership aspirants seem opposed to Leitch’s Canadian values pitch — and one of them was attacked by her campaign manager as being an out of touch elitist for using a free press theatre to launch his leadership bid.

Because renting an expensive hotel ballroom would, I guess, make him the salt of the earth.

It’s going to be a long eight months.

I never thought I would say this, but here goes: Maybe it takes an iron fist like the Stephen Harper PMO to keep this bunch in line.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.