I would point out again, as you can find on the site,
that George W. Bush used Executive Orders "promiscuously", as a way to circumvent Congress and far in excess of those used by his predecessors in similar situations. He was unwilling to trust the democratic process. He had a perfectly compliant Congress and Senate in 2001 and 2002 and after following 9/11, and could have gotten anything he wanted, just as he got the War in Afghanistan, and (improperly) Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Obama was faced by a completely obstructive Senate from day 1. 2012 was the year with the fewest bills passed in history, far surpassing the "Do Nothing" Congress of 1927. I'm not precise on the figures, but 2012 passed approximately 107 Bills, 1927 passed in excess of 400. We all sat through the grotesque spectacle of Obama proposing any number of things throughout his first term only to have them "tabled" by Republican members of the Senate. For Obama, the Executive Order was the ugly alternative to a completely impotent government.
If you care to, you can go through the Bush Executive Orders, but the odds are that we'd disagree about what was necessary, and what wasn't. Certainly, in my view, the Executive Orders creating and facilitating domestic spying are very debatable. But that isn't a fight I intend to participate in, it's pointless. I'd suggest that the unprecedented use of Executive Orders by Bush, and the unprecedented use of the filibuster by Republicans against Obama, are two equivalent evils which demonstrate the extreme Conservative agenda of hijacking the American government and effectively disenfranchising a majority of the American people.