The distinction between anti-government and limited government, or even being critical of the present government whether you want to limit it or not, needs to be made over and over to counteract the repetitious characterizations in the media and poltical class of all protests against government as "anti-government".
I've watched a lot of news reporting lately just to see how the current controversy over "heated rhetoric" is played out, and it's amazing how often politicians, reporters, news show hosts and the media in general are characterizing those critical of our present government as "anti-government".
"Anti-government" gives the impression that the Tea Partiers and those calling for a limited government are wild-eyed anarchists, and when you mix this with "heated rhetoric" and "violence" you present a false impression of sedition -- it compounds the problem when politicians call for better protection of public servants as if they are under seige from a violent, anarchic, anti-government fringe movement which has been spewing hate speech. This in itself is irresponsible rhetoric creating a more fear-producing environment. This false image being created of the Tea Party is another sign of a dying media and a desperate government, making the TP case why government and the media that defends the status quo should be criticized.