The point of this address to the NAACP was to send a signal to right-leaning, suburban white voters—that Mitt Romney is tolerant, and won’t represent the bigots in his party. But there’s a sense in which Romney had it both ways: Not only did he reassure hesitant whites, but by pledging to repeal Obamacare—and being booed by the audience—he likely increased his standing with those who do resent African Americans. By going to an audience of black professionals and sticking with his stump speech, there’s a sense in which Romney might receive credit for refusing to “pander.”
It's a pretty easy win for Romney. He gets points for not being afraid to venture into hostile territory, and then gets more points for not tailoring his message to win votes. He had no real chance of winning any of these votes in the first place, which means that sticking with his standard stump speech was something less than a profile in courage, but he probably earns some points anyway.
i don't know afterhearing other commentary and reflection and the look on his face when the alleged gaffe i think i fall between 60-40 in favor of a planned effort to appease his people while maybe not expecting such an orderly and gracious response from the NAACP. the dull stare after was hard to read he looks like that anyway.
given the treacherous designs of the right wing and Romney's play along to get along demeanor not so much a one or the other, however i still lean more toward a right wing covert mission, to seem as though they care while he tells them he's going to cancel everything they need to survive, and also saying to the base and other's "i'm here but i'm still gonna stick it to 'em".
