Paterson Blows a Whistle on the Stealth Candidacy of Andrew Cuomo

RYE, N.Y.—Andrew Cuomo was on his way out.

It was 9:30 on the morning of a state Democratic Party gathering at the Rye Hilton on May 31, and Mr. Cuomo, whose official job is attorney general, had delivered another confident speech about his plan to overhaul state government. It was the latest and most ambitious component of his undeclared, unacknowledged campaign for governor of New York.

As he left, a couple of reporters asked him about the possibility of mounting a direct primary challenge to David Paterson, the current governor, who polls show to be far less popular as a statewide official than Mr. Cuomo is.

The attorney general said his current plan was to run again for attorney general. Then he said that next year was a “long way away.” And then he said, “We’re a party of primaries, which I think winds up being good for us, because I think the conversation and the discussion within the party can be very productive.”

Then he strolled to the open door of a black sedan, got in and left.

This is what the Cuomo 2010 insurgency looks like. He collects positive headlines as attorney general, drops hints about his political future without actually saying anything, puts in just enough public appearances to leave them wanting more. His task is to see to it that his poll numbers make him irresistibly attractive to a party that wants to make sure it has a winner at the top of the ticket, and to make sure that the members of said party know that that’s exactly where he wants to be.

He continues to tailor-make his general-election platform: consumer protection, corruption fighting and, now, downsizer of government bloat. And he waits—for the governor to collapse under the weight of his own popularity, or for interest groups and officials and maybe even, as one popular bit of speculation goes, the White House to come in and force Mr. Paterson out.

At 11 a.m., the governor began counterinsurgency measures.

Answering reporters who asked, purposefully, whether he believed Mr. Cuomo would make a good governor, Mr. Paterson said yes, “when I’m gone.” He also said that he didn’t “welcome a primary,” but that he was planning to run “in the face of all possibilities.”

At around 2:30 in the Westchester Ballroom of the hotel, which was blanketed in “Governor Paterson 2010” signs, Mr. Paterson delivered a speech laden thick with campaign message. He said he was “determined to do what’s right for the people of New York” and talked about “shared sacrifice,” because “I know that New York is where every great recovery begins.”

The next day, longtime Paterson associate Charlie Rangel took things a step further.

In a phone interview with The Observer, Mr. Rangel—a close ally of the governor’s father who lives in the same Harlem apartment complex as the Patersons—said, “I was really surprised to read something that everything is on the table or a primary is good for Democrats. Because last week I got a surprise telephone call from him that was pretty lengthy in which he was giving me assurances that he would not be a candidate against the governor and that he was doing all that he could to support the governor.”

He knew exactly what he was doing.

Just as Mr. Cuomo’s strategy is predicated on making every preparation possible for a run for governor without actually appearing to undermine the man whose office he covets, Mr. Paterson’s imperative is now to do the precise opposite: He has to bring Mr. Cuomo’s stealth campaign into the open.

There are a number of reasons for this.

One is that Mr. Cuomo tried an insurgency once before—in 2002, when he ran a profoundly unsuccessful primary campaign against party-establishment favorite Carl McCall, who at the time stood to become the first black major-party nominee for governor. As Mr. Paterson and his supporters are aware, Mr. Cuomo is now faced with a certain awkwardness as he prepares to hasten the demise of the state’s first black governor.

As Mr. McCall put it, “Primaries are always difficult; they always divide the party and that is why a lot of people would not like to see a primary. Everything you have ever done makes things tougher for what you want to do in the future.”

Another reason is that Mr. Paterson is in a terrible rut. He made an awful first impression after taking over from Eliot Spitzer in March 2008, and made things worse by bungling the process of selecting a Senate replacement for Hillary Clinton. He is introducing lots of initiatives in Albany—every day, it seems—but the process narrative, like his poll numbers, is frozen in place. He needs a fight.

Told of Mr. Rangel’s remarks, Mr. Cuomo’s spokesman, Alex Detrick came up with the following: “The Attorney General’s discussion with Congressman Rangel was private but was consistent with what he has repeatedly said over the last six months, which is that his current plan is to run for re-election as Attorney General, and that next year is a political lifetime away.”

Whether and how Mr. Paterson will be forced to abandon the governorship is now the most popular parlor game among Democratic legislators, consultants and insiders in New York and Washington.

“The State Legislature elected in 2010 will draw the lines for Congress, so if David is very low and it looks like the Senate could flip back to the Republicans, does that get Charlie Rangel and company to come in and say we can’t afford that?” said a senior elected official in Albany. “Do they go to the White House and say, you know what? This will be a problem for you because you could lose seats in New York if the Republicans get the State Senate back?”

There are other variables, such as who the Republicans come up with: the prospect of Rudy Giuliani might make nervous Democrats even more nervous, while, say, Rick Lazio might not.

And the possibility of White House intervention, in the wake of the Rahm Emanuel-inspired withdrawal of Representative Steve Israel from a planned primary challenge to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, also comes up frequently. Although the expectation seems to be that even Barack Obama might not be able to resolve this particular problem quite so cleanly.

As one member of the New York congressional delegation told me, by intervening in the Gillibrand situation, “He’s invited himself into a much bigger problem.”

Another well-placed source in Washington said, “There is an anxiety about the weak person at the top of the ticket and what that could do to the State Senate and therefore who represents what district. These anxieties go beyond New York State.”

On the afternoon of May 31, Mr. Paterson, Ms. Gillibrand and other state officials, though not Mr. Cuomo, marched in the Israel Day Parade in Manhattan. As Ms. Gillibrand and Mr. Paterson walked with held hands and discussed fund-raising for the governor, I asked another marcher, Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey, about the Paterson-Cuomo situation.

Mr. Corzine said that he had not heard any speculation about the White House getting involved to remove Mr. Paterson if he seemed especially vulnerable to a Republican challenger. But speaking more generally, he expressed support for the notion of the White House getting involved in state affairs.

“I think the president is the leader of the party, so he’s not indifferent and he shouldn’t be,” said Mr. Corzine, who is himself struggling and facing a strong Republican challenge. “If he feels strongly and it’s important for moving his agenda, it’s appropriate. It’s not unreasonable. As a matter of fact, I think it’s important for him to do.”

Among political insiders, there is also speculation about who in Washington would be responsible for keeping tabs on the political situation in New York. The general consensus is that Patrick Gaspard, director of the Office of Political Affairs for the Obama administration and a longtime labor operative from New York, would be the person most likely responsible for translating New York politics to the White House.

According to Democratic operatives in New York, Mr. Gaspard is not especially close to Mr. Paterson, and, when he was the lead political operative for the 1199 branch of the Service Employees International Union, worked to elect Mr. Cuomo Attorney General in 2006. (Mr. Gaspard declined to comment for this story.)

For his part, Mr. Paterson expressed doubt about the White House scenario.

“I don’t know to what extent the White House has gotten involved; you hear a lot of conversation and rumors about who spoke to who,” Mr. Paterson told The Observer in an interview at the conclusion of the parade.  

He added, “So I would see where Democratic leaders would try to create party unity at a time like this. But I don’t know that the White House—I mean, during the Senate selection, I kept hearing about what the White House did, and the White House told me to pick who was the best person. That’s all they ever said to me, and it was never said to me from a particularly high-level source. So I think that there is a lot of exaggeration.”

Asked what he made of Mr. Obama calling Mr. Israel and asking him not to run, Mr. Paterson said, “How do you know that?”

When explained that it was publicly revealed by Mr. Israel in a press release as the reason for his not running, Mr. Paterson responded, “O.K.,” and climbed into a waiting SUV.

The next day, Mr. Rangel said that more involvement by national Democrats in state business would not be appreciated.

Referring to the White House, he said that he could not determine “how far they will go in terms of dealing with the gubernatorial incumbent. I think once a president gets involved in that, and primaries, he would be overextending himself throughout the country. It would send a chill down the spine of this new politics.”  

If Mr. Cuomo wants it, in other words, he may just have to come get it himself.

--additional reporting by Azi Paybarah