How different Dear Leader's actions are from his solemn campaign promises

President Obama has issued some more signing statements signaling his intent to blatantly ignore certain pieces of legislation designed to rein in his dictatorial tendencies:

"In a statement issued Friday night, President Obama took issue with some provisions in the budget bill – and in one case simply says he will not abide by it."

...

"One rider – Section 2262 -- de-funds certain White House adviser positions – or “czars.” The president in his signing statement declares that he will not abide by it."

That position is certainly different from the one he vigorously espoused while a candidate for his current job, when he on several occasions roundly castigated President Bush for doing the exact same thing:



We'll say this about Dear Leader - he never lets something as minor as, oh, a centerpiece campaign promise get in the way of his overweening agenda.

The best part of that clip has got to be the prominently featured "Change we can believe in" podium sign he stands behind while delivering that bold promise to his star-struck supporters, a vow that he apparently had absolutely no intention of fulfilling.

Can someone please explain to us how engaging in the very same acts that one (rightly) condemned his predecessor for doing is considered "Change"?


UPDATE:  Glenn Greenwald agrees with us:

"It would be one thing if these full-scale reversals were on ancillary issues. But these are fundamental. They're about the powers of that office and the nature of our government. And Obama made these issues the centerpiece of his campaign. These campaign statements are nothing less than vows made to voters about how he would exercise the power he was seeking if they voted for him. To insist during the campaign that Presidents have no power to start wars without Congress or to ignore laws the President believes are unconstitutional -- and then do exactly that once he's been vested with that power -- is a form of fraud. "