Paul Brandus has an article in The Week titled "Why Cantor's upset is bad news for Obama." This refers to the defeat of Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in his primary, to a Tea Party-supported candidate. Brandus's point is that the House Republicans will move even further to the right, making it more difficult for Obama to accomplish his agenda, since Cantor was somewhat willing to work with Obama.
One passage in the story is amusing: "The [Republican] establishment group would prefer to at least talk to President Obama and look for common ground on key issues; the far right sees this as a waste of time. To them, there's no common ground to be had. Obama must be resisted — completely, on everything, and with no room for compromise."
Does anyone remember any sense of "compromise" from Democrats when they controlled both houses of Congress? Have Senate Democrats "compromised" with Republicans on any of their agenda?
No. To the contrary. Democrats excluded Republicans almost completely from legislation when they had control of Congress. Harry Reid's Senate not only shuts down Republican requests for debate or the opportunity to offer amendments to legislation, they actually changed the rules so they could force through Obama's judicial nominees over Republican opposition.
Now that Republicans control half of Congress, and Tea Party-leaning Republicans are exerting their own power, it's that one particular contingent that is being blamed for an unwillingness to compromise. Laughable.