You, like far too many, don't understand the meaning of 'hypocrite'. For example, a recent anti-drug commercial has a dad talking about how he used to use drugs as a teen and how he's a hypocrite for telling his teen now not to use drugs. The ad concludes with a voice-over saying something to the effect that it's better to be a hypocrite than to have the kid on drugs. This is an incorrect use of the word. Now, if the dad were currently doing that which he was telling someone else not to do, then he would be a hypocrite.
Now I understand. If George Bush opines before a minority journalist's conference that he now believes that 'legacy admissions' should be abolished after both he and his daughter Barbara are now finished using them to help gain admission to Yale, that is not 'hypocritical'. However, if he had made the same statement before the same organization the day before his daughter's graduation from Yale three months ago in May, then he could be considered a hypocrite.
Wait a minute, this seems familiar... The meaning of the word depends exclusively on the time-frame involved. It's coming back to me... Ah, yes. "that depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."
dvwjr
"Now I understand."
No, it's that if you realize that you were wrong to do something and shouldn't have done it, and in fact you stop doing it, you regain your standing to tell others they shouldn't do it without being a hypocrite.
hypocrite
\Hyp"o*crite\, n. [F., fr. L. hypocrita, Gr. ? one who plays a part on the stage, a dissembler, feigner. See Hypocrisy.] One who plays a part; especially, one who, for the purpose of winning approbation of favor, puts on a fair outside seeming; one who feigns to be other and better than he is; a false pretender to virtue or piety; one who simulates virtue or piety.
A, I understand your concern about the time frame mitigating the hypocrisy. But I disagree completely with your assertion that in order to be a hypocrite, you need be doing the thing you are condemning at the time you condemn it.
Certainly, the worst hypocrites are the self-righteous bastards like Jimmy Swaggart, who spout "Do X!" while they do Y. But that doesn't make someone like Bush, who benefitted doubly from legacy admission via his and then his daughter's admission, less of a hypocrite. If these beliefs of his weren't shouted AFTER his daughter was free of the taint, but before his daughter ever went to college, he would still be a hypocrite, but less so. Here, he's blatantly avoided making a strong statement against legacy admissions until his daughter has benefitted. DVWJR hits the nail on the head--would he be even less of a hypocrite if, say, he'd waited until he's out of office? Retired? On his deathbed? From a quick search, I find no condemnation from Bush of legacy preferences until he and his kids were clear of repercussion ("He doesn't like them, eh? Good, his daughter can go to Hell and Barnard!")
You don't suddenly regain your purity with regard to hypocrisy. Time doesn't heal all wrongs. Virtue lost cannot be redeemed--it can only be compensated for, which isn't the same thing at all. The drug-warning dad is indeed a hypocrite. He's just compensating for his error, and while that doesn't redeem his hypocrisy, at least he's well-intentioned.
Bush's intentions, however, SUCK, in that he's destroying the right of a service provider to preferentially treat good customers better than the average schmuck. If a bank did this for its big money/long term depositors, giving them preferred customer service or increasing their interest, you'd be pissed but you'd understand. If an airline does it, you grind your teeth, but you'd understand. Legacy admissions are the same for colleges.
A true conservative does not mandate the private market serve all customers equally. If so, there could be no discounts for bulk purchases, no special rewards for those who buy the discount card.
I don't love being on the ass end of the consumer service pile, but I won't hold back the head of the market to make the butts feel better. You pay (or your family pays), you deserve play.
OTOH, the reality is that the Bush twins would be let into ANY school they so desired -- because their father is President! Therefore, the legacy point is moot.