Ridley Scott's upcoming film has been criticized by progressives as a "love letter to the tea partiers." The tea partiers have dismissed these criticisms and focused on star Russel Crowe's comments about Wall Street and media consolidation.
Robin Hood in Scott's film, if City Pages is correct, emphasizes the anti-tax rhetoric of the typical Robin Hood story. Robin Hood in the film is described as coming from "humble" beginnings, which is a change from the Robin Hood of most recent media. Robin Hood has often been portrayed as a Lord who has lost his title and spends the story fighting to regain it from John. Tea partiers may recognize this comparison in their (wealthy) leaders saying they fight for the common man, but in fact have their own agendas.
But what about the Robin Hood who "stole from the rich and gave to the poor?" Now this is where things get interesting. While the Robin Hood who fought against tax-happy John could be a tea party hero, the Robin Hood who stole from the rich and gave to the poor is a tea party (or at least a conservative) bogeyman.
Bill O'Reilly used the name pejoratively to both then-Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama when they were running for President. He was referring to a progressive income tax. O'Reilly has elsewhere described it, more crudely as "taking my money and giving it to people who don't deserve it."