I've been waiting to talk about this for facts to come out, but it really does look like when Mitt Romney spoke at an NAACP event they didn't want to hear what he had to say, just to boo him and stir up this image of him being another racist republican by claiming he spoke to them so he could be booed. Wrap your head around that sort of circular logic for a second folks, these people are trying to claim Mitt is a racist because he knew he would be heckled by their crowd (oh what civilized behavior on their part) and that it would galvanize the racist voting block behind him. First off, how stupid do they think he is? White racists are such a small minority of the population that it makes no mathematical sense to court them if you want them voting for you, and in this case even supposing Romney wanted some pastey faced, flabby red neck with a couple of extra toes and a deficit of measurable intelligence to vote for him all Romney needs to do is show the president in his ads and the racist contingent will line up behind him.
It's crazy conspiracy theory idiocy pure and simple, but there are some legitimate gripes some people made about Romneys speech. One is he gave his standard stump speech and didn't cater to the crowd. At least it is more coherent than the courting racists claim, but it does show a certain sense of entitlement. Don't the leaders of the NAACP seem just a bit whiny and out of touch when they demand a speaker cater to them, after all? Romney has some pretty clear cut positions and was explaining them as he always does, with the assumption that a crowd that has him speaking is intellectually open and curious and wants him to talk about solutions.
Some complained he didn't get in to specifics on poverty, well, that right there his horse manure. Romney spoke about the connection between poor education and poverty and how he plans to enact what amounts to a national voucher system attaching funding for schools to the children that should be attending them. Out of all the ways liberals claim we should be more like Europeans this is the only way they don't mention and the only one I could ever get behind. Studies have shown that kids in private schools do better while the schools themselves spend less money per child, and when a parent is actively engaged in the education of their child the child tends to do better. Unfortunately those facts don't amount to much in the face of union influence, and the NAACP is firmly in lockstep with the rest of the liberal hive mind concerning vouchers.
Finally there was the complaint about Romney being boring. I honestly have nothing there, Romney is about as exciting as eating plain white bread while watching beige paint dry. I'm fine with that though, Obama was exciting but unprepared for the job. Romney is boring but smart, competent, ad experienced. Which, oh reader, would you prefer?