Romney is already patting himself on the back for not giving "different speeches to different audiences." Jamelle Bouie thought Romney's NAACP speech was effective:
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.”
Kevin Drum nods. Charles Blow is on the same page:
The speech sounded like it was designed not for the audience in the room, but for those in Republican living rooms. It sounded as though he wanted to show force and fearlessness: “Look folks, I walked into hostile territory unafraid and unbowed.” This was his version of a Daniel in the lions’ den speech.
Paul Mirengoff has related thoughts:
[A] key purpose of such an appearance is to to satisfy white voters, especially moderates, that he cares about African-Americans. All Republican presidential candidates gain by comforting swing voters on this score. But because he is running against the first African-American president, it was particularly important for Romney to undertake the exercise.
John Hinderaker differs:
I generally question whether it is wise for Republicans to speak to groups like the NAACP. The NAACP has lost whatever moral standing it once had, and now is merely another left-wing pressure group. Making what comes off as a pilgrimage to ask for that organization’s approval tends to legitimize it, and it is hard to see what good can result.
Adam Serwer dissects Romney's speech:
There are substantive reasons why Romney's pitch fell flat. Romney told the NAACP that "I believe that if you understood who I truly am in my heart, and if it were possible to fully communicate what I believe is in the real, enduring best interest of African American families, you would vote for me for president." This is a spectacularly bad pitch for any politician, because it happens to matter very little what candidates feel in their heart. What matters is the party they represent, and the policies they've committed to pursuing.
Francis Wilkinson agrees:
The only "real" Romney that matters is the Republican standard bearer currently running for president. There is no mystery about what this Romney stands for: low taxes on the wealthy, large cuts in entitlement spending (for rich and poor alike) and, as post-1980 Republican history and the Romney-endorsed Ryan budget plan both suggest, deficit financing of these and other efforts. Romney represents the Republican Party. And the party's an open book.
John Cassidy praises Romney's attempt at outreach:
Here was the Romney that many moderate Republicans were hoping to see: a candidate trying to move beyond the G.O.P. base and appeal to Americans who don’t work on Wall Street, gather at shooting ranges, or watch Fox News. Clearly, reaching across social and political lines doesn’t come naturally to the Mittster: he doesn’t have the easy charm and personal magnetism of a Ronald Reagan or a Bill Clinton, and he never will. But today, for once, he looked like a competent politician doing his job. By his recent standards, that represents progress.
Chauncey De Vega gives Romney "extra points for showing up before such a hard audience," but argues that showing up wasn't enough:
[P]olitics is ultimately about winning friends, giving interest groups something they want in order to support you, and securing the votes of a given public: Mitt Romney fell flat in all these regards before the NAACP on Wednesday.
The Dish 