The election in November presents the country with two clearly different candidates: one who wants a bigger government and one who wants a smaller government. The cons of re-electing President Obama include that he does not have a plan for helping our country out of our economic woes. Instead of bringing our country together he is dividing us. He does not tell us his plans for the country, he only bashes his opponent. He came to be President without any real management or political experience. The President's job is not a place for on-the-job training. However, our country voted him in and we should respect his position. It is unfortunate that under his leadership unemployment and underemployment has risen, the number of people on food stamps is at an all time high, our national debt has soared, and internationally, and the U.S. has lost respect from other leaders (recently shown in a poll and by the actions of other countries).
I would disagree with the poster that said we don't know Romney. This is his second try at becoming President and has been vetted by the media and anyone on the Democratic side. A little looking and one would be able to find out just about anything one wants to know about him. The con about him being President is yes, he has not been President; however, he has been Governor, has run businesses and was able to run the Olympics in times of great uncertainty. He has been married to the same woman--which can't be said for a lot of people today. He has also done volunteer work overseas as a young man. Given that the economy is the number one issue in this country, the pro is that he has experience with businesses of many kinds. He also has political experience. I guess the question is an old one: Are you better off today than you were 3 1/2 years ago?
The pros-- in this country, when an administration disappoints the public, we can try something new by electing a new candidate. Cons--unfortunately, the candidates we have to choose from are disappointing.
One pro of re-electing Obama is consistency, both in the law and in foreign policy. Consistency means stability, and this is usually good for any society. Obama has also gained valuable experience in his first term, while Romney would be starting from scratch. A President in his second term has a tendency to be bolder, since he never has to worry about being elected again.
On the pro side for electing Romney, some might argue it would break the logjam in Congress and something could get done, though as we saw the first half of Obama's term where both Congress and the White House were run by Democrats, single party control doesn't count for much if the other party does anything necessary to obstruct. Big business pefers Romney because they believe they can be more profitable with him in office.
One down side of Romney as President is that he seems to have no principles at all, simply saying whatever he needs to say to get elected. Another is that because he is unprincipled, he is likely to be controlled by the noisiest or most powerful voices in his party. And as a very liberal person, I cannot see anything positive in a Romney Presidency.
The down side of Obama's reelection is primarily one pointed out in an earlier response, that if Congress is in the hands of the other party, he can accomplish little or nothing. If he has a Democratic-controlled Congress, I think he can effectuate changes that will be good for all of us, including a stronger stimulus program, which we desperately need.
If you look at the Constitution, though, you will note that the executive branch has very little power on its own, and so, whatever the pros and cons of either as president might be, presidents in general cannot do nearly as much as people believe they can.
I found the Republican candidates disturbingly inept, and many of them had serious issues concerning personal character and honesty as well as true leadership experience. I believe Romney proved to be the best candidate, though I consider him simply the lesser of other evils. I am no big fan of President Obama either, and I wish another Democratic candidate would have emerged to give voters a different choice.
One certain reality check that I have every four years is seeing the how divided the country is between red and blue states. It seems like people in the United States cannot agree on one standard on any issue, so why should we expect congress to do that? The presidential elections seem to be so close in the end (like 51% to 49%) that there doesn't seem to be one standard that we all can stand behind. When it comes down to selecting a president, it's not even about getting more people out to vote because the decision is based on electoral votes and not the popular vote. Any president is going to do what s/he thinks is best for the country. I'm glad that our forefathers understood changing things up every few years so one ideology doesn't overrun another. Both Obama and Romney bring good things to the table. As long as there is a change in power every few years, things should be ok no matter what happens.
For me, the main thing we need is a government in which the same party controls the Presidency and Congress. For both men, then, the major con would be if Congress is in the hands of the other party. I think that we need to have a government that will actually do something to try to fix the problems we have. I don't know which party will do a better job, but I think that it is clear that we hurt ourselves badly when we have a government that is so divided that nothing can be done at all.