Good question being asked by Frank Rich: read article

I have a feeling everyone, including most Republicans, is asking the same question:

WHO IN GOD'S NAME IS ROMNEY?
http://nymag.com/print/?/news/frank-rich/mitt-romney-2012-2/

To me, Romney looks like a robot or an alien -- there is no warmth, no human connection, no empathy in this man. It is more than social awkwardness; his eyes look vacant of personality. His mannerisms seem programmed and are devoid of real humanness. He seemingly has no deep convictions (other than, perhaps, his Mormon religion, which he gifts with $2 million or more each year) and shifts his views--often 180 degrees--with the political wind. He seems to be a perfect puppet, easily ordered to say one thing at one time and the exact opposite at another time. His allegiance to Mormonism and the Mormon hierarchy (read about their cultish belief system at: http://www.exmormon.org/) does not bode well for us should he be elected President.

EXCERPT from Frank Rich's perceptive article: For 4 years, Republicans have been demonizing Barack Obama for his alleged “otherness”—trashing him as a less-than-real American pushing “anti-colonial,” socialist, and possibly Islamist ideas gleaned from a rogue’s gallery of subversive influences. And yet Romney is in some ways more exotic and more removed from “real America” than Obama ever was, his gleaming white camouflage notwithstanding. Romney is white, all right, but he’s a white shadow. He can come across like an android who’s been computer-­generated to be the perfect genial candidate. When forced to interact with actual people, he tries hard, but his small talk famously takes the form of guessing a voter’s age or nationality (usually incorrectly) or offering a greeting of “Congratulations!” for no particular reason. Richard Nixon was epically awkward too, but he could pass (in Tom Wicker’s phrase) as “one of us.” Unlike Nixon’s craggy face, or, for that matter, Gingrich’s, Romney’s does not look lived in.

That missing human core, that inauthenticity and inability to connect, has been a daily complaint about Romney. To flesh out the brief, critics usually turn to his blatant political opportunism and rarefied upbringing—his history of ideological about-faces and his cakewalk as the prep-school-­burnished, Harvard-educated son of a fabled auto executive. But the hollowness of Romney is not merely a function of his craven surrender to the rightward tilt of the modern GOP or the patrician blind spots he acquired at too many fancy schools and palatial country clubs. If that were the case, he’d pass for another Bush, and receive some of the love that Bush father and son earned from the party faithful in their salad days. Some think he can get there by learning better performance skills: As Chuck Todd of NBC News put it, he “has to learn how to connect, how to speak emotionally … more from the heart.” If Nixon could learn how to sell himself in 1968 under the tutelage of Roger Ailes, and Bush 41 could receive coaching from the legendary acting teacher Stella Adler in 1980, there might still be hope for Romney under the instruction of, say, Kelsey Grammer. But Romney is too odd, too much a mystery man. We don’t know his history the way we did Nixon’s and Bush’s. His otherness seems not a matter of style and pedigree but existential.