Not just from the GOP. They’re also declaring independence from Democrats, self-styled tea-party “leaders,” and the “ENE-media” (not to be confused with “friendly media”). This is not, I should note up front, an indication that they’re going third-party, just a reservation of their right to do so — or to stay home, of course — if Republicans don’t cater to them. Which makes it not so much a rejection of Sarahcuda’s advice as, shall we say, a response to it.

Here’s the PDF. If there’s one thing conservatives need right now, it’s another manifesto.

We insist that the Tea Party Movement does NOT consider the election of Republicans in and of itself to be necessarily beneficial to our goals.

We demand the Republican Party understand that we reject its attempts to co-opt us…

We reject RINO money; we reject RINO “advice”; we reject RINO “professional experience”; we reject RINO “progressivism”; we reject RINO support of Big Government; we reject RINO back room deal making; we reject RINO pork spending; we reject false RINO professions of Conservative views and we reject the RINO’s statist subversion of the principles of small government for which the Republican Party is supposed to stand…

We demand the Republican Party recognize that while the Tea Party Movement cannot guarantee their aid will help them win elections, it is very likely WE CAN MAKE THEM LOSE if they are disdainful of our goals.

Compare that to what Limbaugh said yesterday about being disappointed in Scott Brown’s vote on the jobs bill. (“I’m not spruced by it. He’s from Massachusetts. Folks, he is not a down-the-line conservative, and nobody ever said that he was. He’s a far sight better than Ted Kennedy. He’s a far sight better than having a Democrat in there.”) Actually, though, the section on independence from Republicans is less interesting than the section on Democrats. Quote:

We reject a foreign policy which bows and scrapes and apologizes before the world for America.

We reject an Attorney General of the United States who offers succor and rights to vicious terrorist murderers and seeks to protect them with a mock civilian trial when such enemy combatants, captured on the field of battle, should be tried in secure military courts.

We reject the claims of an un-elected Federal Judiciary to violate the separation of powers by demanding its decisions be enforced by the other coequal branches of government, regardless of how unconstitutional the other branches of government may think those decisions are.

On those first two points, was there some purge of Paulnuts from the movement that I’m not aware of? These are not consensus libertarian positions; to incorporate them into a statement of grand principles is a form of cooptation in its own right. As for the third point, what exactly are they suggesting? That they want to overturn … Marbury v. Madison? I missed the memo about that being some core tea-party plank, but I guess if you’re going to fantasize, there’s no sense in holding back.

But read the whole thing and decide for yourself. The good news is, if you don’t like what you see, another manifesto will be along in a minute or two that you might like better. Why, here’s one now…