Show a reliable piece of evidence that show exactly how many jobs Romney created.  There are no records from Bain, because Bain was not in the business of creating jobs, just maximizing return on investments, so pretty much any creation of jobs by Romney there was accidental, and not intentional (and he was still paid and owner when Bain was getting companies to lay people off and he did nothing to come up with another way).  And his job creation while governor, wasn't good.   Wall Street Journal said that it is "vexing" trying to show how many jobs Romney created at Bain:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303292204577519293959381060.html

Romney's job create is very much in dispute.  Again, show an article that shows exact numbers.  

And want to discuss failures?  Well, need to compare Obama to the adminstration prior.  Care to point out any successes of the Bush administration?  Well, at least Bush didn't have sexual relations with an intern.  Contrast way the economy was going.  I would need to see evidence that a Romney administration isn't  return to the Bush administration, or at least the Bush administration wasn't that bad.

I've always thought holding a president responsible for an economy's failure or success is largely akin to older cultures lynching the village leader for a poor harvest or worshiping him for a great one.

But maybe that's just me.

Bush shouldn't even enter into this discussion, but as you cited his policies for the economic downturn, I will educate you on what caused the economic mess. Ready?

Clinton. Bill Clinton could have easily vetoed the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, but he did not. This not only deregulated "big banks" but offered sub-prime mortgage rates to unqualified people in order for Clinton to bloat the housing market. When people could not afford their mortgages, the bubble burst. Welcome to the present. 

In regard to Romney's job creation, as you've stated it is difficult to find accurate statistics as Bain Capital only invested in companies. That investment promoted growth and expansion (in most cases), which in turn created jobs. I've had this discussion before, and grown tired of it, but the wall street journal did a fact check on the claim that he created hundreds of thousands and concluded it was tens of thousands instead.

Look at his unemployment statistics as governor...that should suffice for why his job creation was slim in comparison.

You will not find me defending the Bush administration. Unfounded war-mongerers at best.

I cannot fathom how you can support a president that promises one thing and does the exact opposite. (Deficit, war, budget, economy, jobs)

Social issues come secondary to jobs and the economy.

As far as why I want Romney as president. He is a proven success in business, job creation, profiting. Exactly what this country needs. (Why do you think Herman Cain was leading the GOP race prior to those allegations?)

While it is not really in their "job description", the President of the United States has a lot of power to influence the house and the senate (as well as many pseudo governmental bodies like the Federal Reserve) and can have a very large impact on the economy. There are factors outside of their control, and their impact is not immediate, but they actually do have a lot of economic power.

The stimulus (for example) was completely misguided. Had the focus been on building (or repairing) infastructure that would enable future job creation it would (likely) have long term positive impacts in the economy; for example, building the next generation internet backbone that connects all states (potentially leading to the United States being able to provide more internet connections at higher speeds than anywhere else in the world) would have been a better use of money than spending it on "green energy" companies that would soon go bankrupt.

Just to add to your point:

Picking on the green energy that probably didn't have that much money given to it compared to others.  Didn't the banks get most of the money?

Banks were given a ton of money, but not through the stimulus bill

Ah that was just the bank bailout.  There has been so many stimulus, bailout, etc going on since 08 that I lose track.

Let's say that the President of the United States is the single most influential individual in how the American economy pans out.

In light of the fact that he's merely a portion of the federal government, that the federal government is not the only governmental entity in the United States, that the totality of the governments in the United States are only a fraction of the actors in the US economy, and that the US economy is increasingly interreliant with the various economies of the world, can you truly and honestly say that it's wise to pin such an inordinate amount of responsibility on him for the economy?

I can not.

Criticism of the president, or any other single actor, for his individuals contributions and errors is fair game. Criticism of the president for the totality of the economy, fair or foul, is asinine and reductionist.

Obama is ahead, but it's all within the margin of error for 99% of polls out there. A couple of them actually had him up 6 or 7 points over the past couple of weeks. These are outliers compared to the vast majority of polls take, and the race is only going to get tighter as the debates start and the election gets closer.

Basically this election is going to come down to whether or not the Romney camp can hold it together and put Obama on the defensive, because between whats been going on overseas and the gloomy economic news over the last several months, it hasn't exactly been a rosy picture for Obama. Yet all you hear about in the media is Romney and his many "gaffes".

All you heard for 2 weeks straight in the media was Romney's "47%" comment, while the situation in Syria deteriorated further, the jobs numbers continued to suck hard, and for the first time since 1979 a US Ambassador was killed due to a pre-planned attack that the White House conveniently blamed on the anti-Islam film before finally admitting more than a week later that yes the attack was planned and yes it was an intelligence failure on their part.

But thanks to the Obama water-carrying media constantly focusing on Romney's "gaffes" (which pale in comparison to anything Joe Biden says anytime he opens his mouth), he's still up in the polls after all that.