Romney Takes a Risk

Mitt Romney yesterday gave a speech to the NAACP (I still wonder why we continue to bestow any kind of respect to the NAACP as an organization) and was roundly booed when he told the crowd that he vows to repeal Obamacare should he be elected in November.  Other parts of his speech were actually well received.  Of course, the MSM is focusing on the fact that he got booed, not on the fact that he did not soften his views in front of an audience that would be hostile to his message (when has Obama gotten in front of an audience not already predisposed to nod in agreement at his every word?).  Republicans traditionally have not done a good job in getting their message out to minority groups, but this is definitely a step in the right direction.  And ultimately, Romney not pandering to his audience strikes at the "group" theory politics that divides people based on contingent properties that have no bearing on them as human persons.

UPDATE:

Mona Charen with an important observation that is not hard to imagine:

Naturally, most of the coverage about Romney’s speech to the NAACP focused on the boos. It reflected badly on Romney, we are meant to understand. Question: Is there any doubt that if a liberal Democrat addressed a gathering of conservatives (I know, impossible to imagine, but stay with me), and was booed for his trouble, that the press narrative would be how badly this reflected on the audience?