The vast majority of what this site covers is pointing out lies, contradictions, and absurdities in the St. Louis Tea Party rhetoric. Since they are incapable of responding with actual arguments, they instead attempt to make personal attacks or discredit the site in any way possible. Generally, these take the form of, "St. Louis Pushes Back does X, so we should ignore everything written there." The "everything" is important, of course, because what they're really trying to do is to prevent their audience from realizing just how dishonest most of the Tea Party commentary really is, and the only way to do that is to keep them from reading sites that systematically examine what they say.
One of the funniest attempts at this strategy is to write that this site should be ignored because it used a "horrible sexual slur": namely, the word "teabagger." Aficionados will be aware, of course, that the term teabagger (along with its connotation) was originally used by right wing activists, and only later picked up by the people laughing at them. Anyway, you'll notice that this site does not actually use the term that much: incessant name-calling is more of a characteristic of right-wing extremists and isn't really Pushback's shtick.
But if "teabag" is really such a horrible sexual slur, then why did Dana Loesch, Americans for Prosperity, and Gateway Pundit all use the term today? Gateway Pundit had the following headline:
(screenshot from Hoft's blog)
Loesch and Carl Bearden took it a step further, tweeting the following:
I guess it's only horribly offensive when critics of the tea party use it. The hypocrisy knows no bounds.