Since a recession is by definition "two consecutive quarters of declining GDP" it is safe to conclude that there was no recession in 2002 no matter what happened in the 2nd and 4th quarters. You appear to be defining "by definition" to mean "the NBER says so." By that definition, there was no recession in 1992.
But there's another definition. It's the definition used by Democrats, and the press. In their definition, a recession (they use the term "Worst Economy in 50 Years") is defined as "three consecutive quarters prior to a presidential election in which the Democrats hope to unseat the Republicans."
I think there's a lot of that going on here.
Fundamentally, you have been selling two propositions here: (1) there is no recession because the NBER says so, and (2) the economy sucks. If that isn't straight out of the Clinton Playbook, I don't know what is.
What is your point? I certainly never said there was a recession in 1992; the recession that began July 1990 ended March 1991.
I think the economy is weak and have never made any secret of that. Whether it's weak enough for Bush to lose reelection is another matter altogether. I don't think it is, but that is only because of 9/11. If 9/11 had never taken place, there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that Bush would be headed toward a landslide defeat.
FWIW, the economy is not nearly as weak as I had expected a year ago it would be at this point.