It wasn't a "bonus" in my book. Where I come from that is called a lie. A big fat one too considering how important this bill is to the voters. And him gloating about it on TV is totally gauche. He is supposed to look directly at the camera and say " I had NOTHING to do with the changes to the bill" with a straight face. At least that's how a REAL politician would do it. My hardline opinion.
I guess I would have to hear the exact words of what he said in the campaign. But, from my interpretation of his words, he's not really lying. He said he would SIGN any carry bill that came to his desk. And, from all appearances, he will. However, he simply preferred the bill to have training in it. He probably meant something to this effect: "Yes, I'll sign any bill that comes my way; but, I really want the bill to have training in it." What he would SIGN and what he PREFERS and would actively support are two slightly different things.
Don't get me wrong. I would have preferred for him to actively support a constitutional carry bill myself (since having more constitutional states might convince my legislators down here to support one in 2012 as well). But, I don't think his words merit an accusation of lying. Not telling the entire story, perhaps, but not lying.