New York Times contradicted itself in the Sunday edition re Bush economy.

[AP]

I'm sorry. I don't have the links. But, yesterday, the NYT had a big article about how the Democrats are in a quandry now that it looks like Bush isn't going to be weak on the economy.

In the same issue, they had a AP wire report about how hunger is up in America again this year. Something like 9% more Americans reported not having enough money to feed themselves.

Yeah. Bush is doing great.

[wryter2000]

1. One blip on the radar

And they think they've won the war. Consumer spending went down again in September. The GDP ain't going up again any time soon. At least, not so's you'd notice.

[Brotherjohn]

2. Right. And with all the hoopla over one lousy decent quarter, no one...

... points out the obvious:
Since the economy is is such doldroms, the only way to GO is up! It would take many consecutive quarters of the same kind of growth to even regain what we have lost.

Krugman made a similar point a week or two back regarding the administration latching on to lukewarm job growth for one month (I believe), pointing out that it was still well under the AVERAGE during the Clinton years, and that it would take many more months of much greater job growth to regain the jobs lost during Bush's first term.
(http://www.pkarchive.org/column/102403.html)