Released yesterday:

(1) Smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill
(2) Market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
(3) Market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
(4) Workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check
(5) Legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
(6) Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
(7) Containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat
(8) Retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
(9) Protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
(10) The right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership

Where to begin?

1) Are they saying that the archetypal spending bill they oppose would be a stimulus package in the worst recession since the 1930s? C'mon. Surely, a bill like Medicare D, unfunded and passed during a boom, would be a more apposite example. So on the first count, we have partisanship, not principle winning out.

2. "Government-run healthcare" is a talking point, not an analysis. Do they mean the public option? Or any attempt to help the working poor get private health insurance through government subsidies? And on this count, Mitt Romney is disqualified from being a Republican after his health insurance reform in Massachusetts.

3. They do not mention climate change, which is the entire fricking reason for cap and trade. And what are "market-based energy reforms"? Isn't cap-and-trade specifically designed to operate with markets, not against them?

4. Fine.

5. Utopian.

6. They want a surge in Iraq now? I thought we had one. And military-recommended troop surges? Are they saying that strategy in war should not be driven by the president, but by generals? And McChrystal offered various options for a "surge". Which one is the "military-recommended one"? And how can one reconcile 1. with 6. since the expense of these two endless occupations and exercises in nation-building is one of the biggest new expenditures the country has?

7. Containment of Iran? Well that's an interesting development. Except that it also means "effective action" to "eliminate" their nuclear weapons or weapons technology. Does that mean a military attack? Or sanctions? Or is this as vacuous as it sounds?

8. More with the gays.

9. They oppose denial of healthcare by the government but not denial of healthcare by the private sector?

10. Guns!

If a potential Republican candidate disagrees with more than two of the above, the RNC wants to deny funding. I'm not sure how anyone could agree or disagree with this crapulous mishmash of rhetorical degeneracy. But as a sign of intellectual health, it is depressing. It's a sign that denial is deep and a serious attempt to govern, as opposed to posture, is still far from the Republican psyche.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.