Maybe I'm being dense, but isn't this the same as disagreeing vehemently in an argument with someone, then when the argument is done, the decision made, being gracious in defeat? As stated in the linked press release:

"The Court has made clear that colleges and universities must engage in a serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives. I agree that we must look first to these race-neutral approaches to make campuses more welcoming for all students."

...and in the original article regarding the amicus brief:

'Bush called the system "a quota system" that rejects or accepts students "based solely on race." '

...so it's not that Bush has changed his position at all, it's that he's graciously agreeing with the Court that these quota systems *must* be rid of in our near future; the only "spin" that might be necessary would be the timeline involved--the original amicus brief seems to blast "quotas", and the Justices' opinions seem to go to great lengths to answer, "This is not a quota."

Finally, O'Connor acknowledges Bush's stance in her conclusion, disagreeing only with the timeline: '

In concluding her opinion, Justice O'Connor noted that 25 years had passed since Bakke and said affirmative action should "no longer be necessary" 25 years from now.' -- http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/24/politics/24AFFI.html?pagewanted=2

So Bush's response looks more and more to me like, "Okay, let's agree to disagree." Unless I'm missing something in its tone that someone more practiced in spin-doctoring might find?

I will have to argue that Bush is never "gracious in defeat." He is however gracious in his understanding that he needs to be elected 16 months from now. And he needs minority votes to do it.