The Iowa Model
WASHINGTON, DC, Nov. 6, 2013 — At a press conference, Presidents Obama and Romney looked back with satisfaction on their first year as joint American head of state. “A thrilling but successful experiment,” Romney says. “A journey that has brought us to where we need to be,” says Obama.
They defended their decision to both increase and reduce taxes on high incomes. The criticism that ultimately nothing has changed was called “juggling with numbers” by Romney.
The logistics regarding Iraq: “A challenge,” Obama admitted. “That President Romney kept sending the soldiers there whom I had just called back, we simply could not [continue to] inflict on the men and women in uniform. But since we decided that he could keep half there and I keep the other half here, things have been running smoothly.”
The duo-presidency has advantages, especially in foreign policy. Romney opines: “President Obama goes to Tehran, I visit Jerusalem.”
The two decided to share the White House when a year ago, during the already thrilling presidential elections, the ballot box results from Florida, Ohio and Virginia went missing. Obama: “Luckily, we could fall back on the experience of the Republican Party during the primaries in Iowa, where something similar had happened. There, they simply made it a draw between President Romney and his opponent Rick Santorum.”
In the Netherlands, recently installed Prime Ministers Roemer and Rutte followed on the heels of the press conference. No results had gone missing in the Netherlands, but Rutte saw his chance in the Iowa model for a new period in the Turret [the Dutch prime minister’s office] after the difficult formation [of government]. That this is improper use was disputed by Rutte. “It is my observation that our situation exactly fits that of America. And own observations are always true.”
According to Romney, the U.S. is not less credible as inspectors during elections in other countries: “When we determine fraud somewhere and thus an unclear result, we often introduce the Iowa model. To pacify things.” Rutte supported Romney: “I hear that the demise of Western democracy started in Iowa. That seems unnecessarily gloomy to me.”
They defended their decision to both increase and reduce taxes on high incomes. The criticism that ultimately nothing has changed was called “juggling with numbers” by Romney.
The logistics regarding Iraq: “A challenge,” Obama admitted. “That President Romney kept sending the soldiers there whom I had just called back, we simply could not [continue to] inflict on the men and women in uniform. But since we decided that he could keep half there and I keep the other half here, things have been running smoothly.”
The duo-presidency has advantages, especially in foreign policy. Romney opines: “President Obama goes to Tehran, I visit Jerusalem.”
The two decided to share the White House when a year ago, during the already thrilling presidential elections, the ballot box results from Florida, Ohio and Virginia went missing. Obama: “Luckily, we could fall back on the experience of the Republican Party during the primaries in Iowa, where something similar had happened. There, they simply made it a draw between President Romney and his opponent Rick Santorum.”
In the Netherlands, recently installed Prime Ministers Roemer and Rutte followed on the heels of the press conference. No results had gone missing in the Netherlands, but Rutte saw his chance in the Iowa model for a new period in the Turret [the Dutch prime minister’s office] after the difficult formation [of government]. That this is improper use was disputed by Rutte. “It is my observation that our situation exactly fits that of America. And own observations are always true.”
According to Romney, the U.S. is not less credible as inspectors during elections in other countries: “When we determine fraud somewhere and thus an unclear result, we often introduce the Iowa model. To pacify things.” Rutte supported Romney: “I hear that the demise of Western democracy started in Iowa. That seems unnecessarily gloomy to me.”