Both are means for dealing with the same perceived problem of a corrupt government. One tries to mitigate the impact of corruption, the other tries to reduce the possibility for corruption in the first place. I happen to agree with the latter as a better approach, but I understand why people would support the former - even if that's not what politicians elected as a result of Tea Party support seem to have been doing. There's a certain sense to the position that the qualities that make for successful politicians also make for easily corrupted politicians, no matter the system they find themselves in, and so the most effective way to minimize the harm they do is to minimize the power they have.
Like I said, I don't actually think that's optimal, but it's an insight that I think is important to bear in mind when determining what is optimal. It's correct, as far as it goes. It just stops short of examining other power structures and how they can influence politics, as far as I'm concerned.
EDIT: Criptfeind, I'm pretty sure the comic is saying they're opposing the same thing and that people who say they're opposed are paying attention only to the superficial and are missing the point. I guess it's up for interpretation.