THURSDAY, June 20, 2002 — When Mitt Romney became the Republican nominee in April, he had a fairly straightforward, three-pronged mission ahead of him: first, demonstrate that he is against Beacon Hill; second, show that he’s sufficiently moderate to be elected in Massachusetts; and third — most important — exhibit the requisite management experience to fix the state’s financial problems. During his convention speech, the candidate made a good start toward achieving all three objectives.

But after the recent Democratic attack on Romney’s residency qualifications, that third prong is in shambles. And, if the findings of Princeton student Sarah Kahan are accurate, his chances of winning the governorship may be in grave peril as well. In her undergraduate thesis, Kahan demonstrated that the key swing vote in Massachusetts elections is cast by suburban managerial professionals who care more about politicians’ ability to manage the state than their party affiliations.

Since the Democrats launched their challenge to Romney’s Massachusetts residency last week, however, the Republican’s image as a managerial whiz has suffered from his apparent bumbling of an issue basic to his own campaign. On Monday, Romney told the five-member state ballot commission that he did not know that Utah officials had granted him an $18,000 annual tax break on his Deer Valley, Utah, home as part of a "primary residence" provision. It is also a matter of record that Romney left blank residency questions on his 1999 and 2000 state tax returns. He blamed this error on his accountants at PricewaterhouseCoopers. Finally, when asked about a conversation with a Salt Lake City newspaper reporter in which he stated that he was a Utah resident, Romney said he could not recall the encounter — a laughable memory lapse.

Rather than demonstrating that Romney is the ultimate manager, the Republican candidate’s comments on the residency question at best cast him as the epitome of the opportunistic politician — the exact opposite of the image he’s trying to project. At worst, his statements, if taken at face value, make him appear a stumbling, bumbling ne’er-do-well barely capable of managing his own affairs, let alone the affairs of the state.

Romney’s defenders argue that their candidate is the victim of a vicious smear campaign, conducted by Democrats who seek to distract voters from their own party’s lack of ideas. Possibly so. But any competent candidate would have checked the state’s residency requirements before entering the governor’s race. Even if his residency application did have some holes, Romney would have done well to take care of these at the start of the campaign, before the heat was on. He also might have used the beginning weeks of the campaign, after his nomination, to run ads introducing him to voters. As matters stand, he hasn’t established enough goodwill with state voters to insulate him from the damage of the current attacks.

On the whole, Romney’s performance seems all too similar to Governor Jane Swift’s reaction when faced with political criticism. In the face of charges that she used aides to baby-sit or that she took a state-police helicopter home from Boston, Swift’s first response was to circle the wagons and deny everything. This did not impress voters, and it won’t serve Romney any better. He now looks more like an embattled Enron executive than a competent manager who can save Massachusetts in its time of fiscal crisis.