It makes a strange yet perfect kind of sense that Andrew Scheer would take his strongest stand as leader of the Conservative Party not while running in the federal election, but weeks after losing it.

What is that stance?

Like winter in March, Scheer is sticking around, even though a lot of people don’t want him to.

The leader is not stepping down to pursue his first love: selling insurance.

He is rather, “staying on as leader,” he told reporters Thursday, to “fight the fight.”

It would be neat if he meant this literally — if he was preparing to do what Patrick Brazeau couldn’t in 2012: knock out Justin Trudeau in a charity boxing match before hundreds of cheering spectators.

Unfortunately, though, he didn’t mean it literally.

What he did mean is that he’s gearing up for a way less fun political battle against a ruling Liberal government.

This is the case despite appeals from various members within his own party to please-for-the-love-of-God-throw-in-the-towel.

“Now is not the time for internal divisions or internal party politics,” Scheer told the media, the same day he revealed his leadership team.

Apparently, though, now is exactly the time for internal divisions and party politics.

Among those requesting that the leader resign are former Tory candidates in Quebec and former Stephen Harper communications director Kory Teneycke. Even prominent social conservative groups are abandoning the leader. This week, both the anti-abortion organization, Campaign Life Coalition, and Evangelical Christian activist Charles McVety told The Globe and Mail they hope the Conservatives name a new leader.

This might come as a surprise to many Canadians who thought Scheer was too socially conservative to take us into the 20s and beyond (for example, the 51 per cent of Angus Reid poll respondents who said media coverage about Scheer’s faith left a negative impression of the candidate).

But to some Canadians of deep faith, Scheer isn’t socially conservative enough.

This is likely because, while he certainly didn’t endorse gay marriage, when asked to clarify his position on the topic, he didn’t sufficiently diss it either.

After the leader’s defeat, Peter MacKay summed up Scheer’s loss to a scandal plagued Justin Trudeau with a colourful simile.

“To use a good Canadian analogy, it was like having a breakaway on an open net and missing the net.” (MacKay has since walked back those comments.)

It’s a good analogy, but I’d amend one detail; Scheer’s performance was more akin to having a breakaway on an open net and fanning on the shot.

The truth is that, on a variety of issues, he came off to voters as neither here nor there.

Dogged by questions about his personal views on fundamental rights (same sex marriage, abortion), he was consistently unable to produce a clear answer about who he was, personally, and what he stood for.

In trying to offend no one, he offended everyone, and in trying to please everyone, he pleased no one.

If he showed any emotion or conviction at all around these rights-based questions, it was annoyance that they were being asked.

His inability to clarify his positions adequately can be summed up in a statement made prior to the election by a friend of mine, someone who votes, but is, admittedly, not a close follower of politics: “Scheer … he’s the American who might be against gay marriage, right?”

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

It’s interesting that a leader who failed to make a lasting impression and who waffled throughout the race is digging his heels in in defeat.

Many Canadians had no clue who Andrew Scheer really was and what it was he really stood for.

Now all they know is that he won’t go away.

Read more about: