When Rep. Gregory Meeks reached out to Gov. David Paterson last September to convey concerns the White House was having about the governor’s re-election, many saw the move as the Obama administration’s most overt attempt to muscle Paterson out of the race, in favor of a much safer candidate in Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.

But Meeks said it was merely his role as a concerned New Yorker, and as a concerned Democrat. And any private conversations he has had with Paterson, or President Obama for that matter, will remain private.

Having just returned from Massachusetts, where he stumped for failed Senate candidate Martha Coakley, Meeks discussed the 2010 races, the media’s love for political gossip and what his gut is telling him about the governor’s race.

The Capitol: How did you get involved in the conversations between the White House and Governor Paterson about his re-election?

Greg Meeks: Well, I’m a concerned New Yorker, but I happen to be a friend of the governor, and I support and work very closely with the administration and the president. I’ve had several conversations with the governor on a number of occasions. This was, again, a private and off-the-record kind of conversation that should not have been public, so I’m not going to talk about the substance of it at all. However, you know, I’m in Washington, D.C. I support and want to be helpful to the President of the United States. I’m in New York. The governor is my friend and we got to make sure that we move forward in that regard, to the degree that we could do the best things for the country and the best things for our city and state. However I can be helpful there, I will always be helpful.

TC: Is the White House too involved in New York politics?

GM: You know what…without getting into the substance of my conversation with the governor, the White House is not telling the governor to run or not to run. At least that’s not what my conversation with the governor was about. And the White House has, I believe, gotten involved in several other races all over the country. I can recall when President Clinton was here, and I can recall President Bush and Republican states, they’re all concerned. There’s a lot at stake. It affects the White House, how many senators [we have], as the race in Massachusetts indicates. It affects the White House’s agenda, how many Democratic governors that we have. We have a reapportionment coming up, and that affects the White House agenda. So the White House has concerns in that regard, so they’re doing what they have to do. That’s what a president should do.

TC: Do you still have personal concerns about the governor’s re-election this year?

GM: I mean you have to look at the total picture here because you got to make sure that we are successful, as I was just talking about, in November. And I think the governor would say the same thing. Anytime you look at a candidate, you got to look at the candidate, you got to look at the situation. … I would be the first to say that the governor may have been given a bad hand, just as the president has been given a bad hand to a larger degree. However, we’ve got to figure out how we win in November. What’s the best way? And so, I think that we’ll talk to the governor, going to talk to a number of other folks and try and figure this out. We all got to get together. There’s just so much on the line. I don’t want to go back in the minority. I’ve got to make sure that we maintain all the seats that we have in the House. I want to make sure that we win the Senate seat, retain the Senate seat. I want to make sure that we keep the gubernatorial [seat]. … I want to make sure that we keep the majority for the first time in the State Senate. So for me, we all got to talk together, including with the governor, and try to figure this thing out.

TC: Do you feel like there is too much focus on political gossip and your involvement in these private discussions and not enough on actual policy?

GM: Absolutely correct. For example, a lot of people don’t know in the district that I am the chair of a subcommittee dealing with international monetary policy and trade. And, as a result of that, a lot of work that I do goes into how I’m working with government, how I’m working with the World Bank. You know, this current disaster that we have in Haiti, because of my subcommittee, I’ve got meetings set up as soon as I get back to Washington, with the World Bank, with the IMF, with the International Development Bank, so that we can figure out how we can help improve the infrastructure of Haiti and work with development in some of these other poor countries because of the global economy which we currently live in.  

TC: In politics, don’t all private conversations eventually leak out?

GM: Some people have their purposes for leaks. I mean, I had a reporter, not saying who, who wanted to put an article in the newspaper and said, ‘Look, it’d be helpful if you could, from time to time, if you have a lead on something, to give me a heads up.’ And I was assuming that they were talking about an issue, and they were quite frank with me, ‘No, the gossip.’ That’s what I guess sells their newspapers, and they were more interested in that because, you know, quite frankly, for papers and others it’s about advertisement, it’s about trying to make some money too, I guess. And that’s what they are moving to as opposed to developing a story or looking and working on a story the way it used to happen. … Somebody told me that they looked at how The [National] Enquirer was moving up, and so therefore the regular daily newspapers said, ‘We better go do something like they’re doing, so that we don’t lose our readership.’ For me that’s preposterous. It’s crazy, but that’s where we are.

TC: What are your private conversations with President Obama like?

GM: Number one, I want to be clear: I did not have a direct conversation with the president about the governor.

TC: But you’ve obviously had private conversations with the president.

GM: I have on other things. I want to make sure that’s clear. I can recall from the time that I came into Congress in 1998 and first sat in the White House at that time with President Bill Clinton and Senator Kennedy and some others there—and there I am, a little poor guy from Southeastern Queens, sitting in that room, and they’re asking me questions, which I could participate in shaping the policy and direction in which this country is going in. Anytime that I’m sitting in the White House or talking to the president or talking to someone within the administration, I realize 12 years down the road how important it is, but you still pinch yourself, because this is the greatest country on the planet in the history of the planet and I am sitting as one of the members of the board of directors of this country with direct access to, and having conversations with, probably the most powerful person in the world.

TC: How do you make your endorsement decisions?

GM: Well, number one, I try to get to know the individuals, and try to get to know something about his or her views, if I don’t know already. What they stand for, who they are as a person. That’s important. Number two, I look at, overall, the politics of the situation. When I say politics, I want to make sure we have the right person at the right time to win so that we can move on with a progressive policy that I think my constituents would want to move. … You try to get that general feel of the person. And once you do that, and you look at the overall scenario, then it’s the gut a lot of the times. What’s in your gut? What’s your instinct? I have found in this business that I cannot ignore my instinct. Every time I’ve done that I’ve regretted it.

TC: So what’s your gut telling you about the governor’s race this year?

GM: My gut tells me I haven’t decided yet. Still digesting.