It goes both ways. Exactly the same thing can be said about Obama.
For once in the history of politics, it
can't. If this were a debate about civil liberties or the War on Terror or surveillance or lobbying just about anything else where people make that claim? Holy shit, yes, I would be on your side. But it's not.
The Republican demand is "Defund the ACA, or we'll wreck everything." The Democrat demand is, "Quit wrecking everything, or won't stop you." This is little more than a hostage situation where the Democrats' only leverage is, "You can't possibly be stupid enough to actually do it."
Refusing to compromise on the ACA even to the point of equalizing exceptions for corporations and individuals for a year.
The ACA was already passed, and the Democrats never threatened the government's stability to make that happen. Existing laws are not up for review every time a budget comes up - they've already made it through the democratic process. You want it changed, you repeal or amend it, and if you can't get the votes to make that happen, you accept that you don't have the mandate to rule and move on. You do not recklessly endanger your constituency to prove a political point. This isn't democracy, it's a tantrum.
EDIT: Tantrum, by the way, is a very deliberate choice. You can stop an argument with a teenager by revoking the consequences you threatened for, say, skipping out on chores for a week. That doesn't make it a good parenting choice. I think this is a much better analogy than terrorism, to be honest, which implies a degree of malice that I don't think is really there.