They need to point so someone as prove people who've never worked a day in their lives are "populists" and the teabaggers let them do that despite the fact there's really not a lot of truly unifying issues even among that group. Even the association with the Boston Tea Party is tenuous; as others have noted, the Founding Fathers protested not taxation itself, but taxation without representation. A fair argument could be made we're headed in that direction but, IMHO, it has more to do with excusing corporate America from a share of government expense instead shifted to the middle class than anything else, and I doubt many teabaggers are agitating for higher corporate income and other taxes.

And to be entirely fair, Ron Paul brought the association on himself by running for President as a Republican rather than as a Libertarian as he did in 1988 (and in fact he's run as a Republican in every one of his elections except the '88 Presidential run. ) There are definitely things I like about him, such as his advocacy for a return to the gold standard and his opposition to farm subsidies that go to highly profitable corporations rather than struggling family farmers, but the good doctors prescription for an anemic government is unacceptable to me. I believe in government as an energetic partner and servant of the people; my objection is not to its size but to its unaccountability.