Fair use allows noncommercial use of copyrighted materials in their entirety.

He's the Johnny Applesee of conservative ideas to some, the head of the "anti-Clinton crazies" to others. Say what you want about Richard Mellon Scaife, but this much is established about the Pittsburg philanthropist and publisher: He's given away some $200 million over the past 30 years to diverse institutions, from the National Taxpayers Union to the Hoover Institute, from the Pittsburg Symphony to the Girl Scouts. In recent years, Scaife's gifts to anti-Clinton groups—Judicial Watch and the Landmark Legal Foundation, for instance—have provoked charges that he is the mastermind behind a "vast right-wing conspiracy" to undermine the president. Scaife (whose net worth as an heir to the Mellon oil and banking fortune is estimated at more than $1 billion) brought unwelcome attention to himself with his $1 million donation to Pepperdine University, which later offered a deanship to independent counsel Kenneth Starr. From 1993 to '97, Scaife gave The American Spectator magazine $1.8 million to investigate the Clintons, an effort that led to the Paula Jones lawsuit. A federal grand jury is probing whether some of that money was improperly diverted to David Hale, a businessman and convicted felon who testified against Clinton in the Starr investigation.

While Scaife's politics are Republican and tend toward the libertarian, he is clearly drawn to the dramatic and conspiratorial in public life. Though he operates in such a highly charged political atmosphere, Scaife seems oddly surprised , and even indignant, at the criticism he has encountered. He admits he is uncomfortable in the spotlight, preferring to advance his ideas through the nine Pennsylvania newspapers he publishes. The most prominent of these is the Pittsburg Tribune-Review, which has suggested that two deceased Clinton officials, deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster and Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, were murdered.

We met in his downtown Pittsburg office, high above the Ohio River. Scaife is disarmingly shy and readily admits that he is not a "people person." But he agreed to a rare interview, in part because of his concerns about being demonized in the pres. At 66 and blissfully married to his second wife, Ritchie (who jokingly told me that they "had lived in sin for years" prior to their union). Scaife has a gentle, almost guileless demeanor that seems starkly at odds with his reputatio as a ferocious Clinton hater.

Newt Gingrich once called you the father of modern conservatism.
I'd forgotten that. [Laughs]

You two were close, how do you feel about his stepping down?
I feel sadness, but I think it was a very statesmanlike thing to do. I'm glad he did it. In fact, I'm delighted he did it.

Really?
Well, we need leadership, and Newt wasn't providing it.

How would you describe your political philosophy?
I'm a Republican by birth, and for most of my life I have thought of myself as a Republican. But in the last several years, particularly after Newt's election, I have become more and more Libertarian.

What led to your change of heart?
I don't see the Republican party really going anywhere. Of course, all that could change with Bob Livingston as Speaker. It's interesting—one columnist refers to our two political parties as the stupid paprty and the evil party. Well, I thoroughly believe that in the last several years the Republican party has been the stupid party.

Why?
They haven't exhibited leadership. They've caved in to the brilliant strategist in Clinton. Shutting down the government was a perfect example. Clinton totally outwits the Republicans every time.

Let's turn to your career: your main interests have been philanthropy and the media. Where did that start?
Newspapers have been with me all my life. My father worked for Gulf Oil, and he traveled a lot. Whenever he'd go to a particular city, he'd bring me a copy of the local newspaper. I had a bunch of racks at hom, and I filed the papers alphabetically by state. I had fun collecting them and knowing their names and what they stood for. By the time I was ten, I had subscribed to three newspapers. As for the philanthropy, my father dies in 1958, at the age of 58. I became chairman of his foundation and decided to see where it ought to be going. It had been concentrated primarily in Pittsburg and wester Pennsylvania, and I thought we ought to branch out and look elsewhere.

Were the politics in your household always conservative? Are you cut from the same political cloth as your parents?
I don't know what my mother's politics were—she was probably a conservative. But my father, if you can believe this, was an admirer of [nine-time presidential candidate] Harold Stassen, who was known, somewhat, as the liberal Republican. So, I guess I'm more conservative than my father.

You were an early supporter of President Nixon.
Until Watergate. Then I called for his resignation.

I read somewhere that you said you were disappointed.
Yes, definitely. And I'll never forget the disappointment. It was Christmas 1973. He was still in office. My secretary came in and said, "President Nixon is on the phone." And I said, "Well, I don't want to talk to him." It was kind of sad that I felt that way. And in every biography that you read, I'm the man who gave a million dollars to Nixon in '72.

Do you see any similarities between Presidents Nixon and Clinton?
First of all, Nixon had a foreign policy. And I don't see one in the Clinton administration. And I think history will prove, in the long run, that Nixon was a great president because of his foreign policy.

Right, but what about the issue of character?
It's a matter of degree, and I think that on the character issue, Nixon wins hands down. But that's not saying much.

For the first time in decades, the Republican party is less defined than the Democratic party. In fact, after the November elections, there was a lot of talk about the rise of the so-called Rockefeller Republicans—who are a little more warn and fuzzy than other Republicans.
In 1964, I was Barry Goldwater supporter. A friend set up a meeting between me and Nelson Rockefeller. Eventually, I had eight meetings with the guy, and I came to respect him tremendously. He was far ahead of his time and certainly the smartest of the Rockefeller brothers. So the term Rockefeller Republican is not a pejorative to me.

What about the notion that the Republican party has latched onto morality as its platform, a strategy that turns off a majority of the electorate?
Are you talking strictly about Monica Lewinsky?

Well, it certainly grew out of that. But in a larger sense, do you think the Bill Kristols and Bill Bennetts and Republicans in general are blindly conducting a morality crusade?
Let me say that Bill Bennett is a personal friend of mine. He's on my foundation's board, and I admire him tremendously. So I'm glad somebody is out there saying these things. But to get back to my political philosophy: I'm not a member of the Christian right. I am a firm believer in Planned Parenthood. I've even given to abortion rights groups. And I think Trent Lott's remarks about gays were totally uncalled for. So what I'm trying to say is, I'm not your average conservative.

So the Starr report...
I think the Democrats are right about it. Four years and $40 million later, we haven't gotten anything. Maybe Ken Starr is a mole working for the Democrats. [Laughs]

Let's talk about your relationship with Kenneth Starr and Pepperdine University, because there seems to be a lot of confusion about that.
Okay. As far as I'm sure you've read, I have contributed to Pepperdine, going all the way back to 1962. I have never met Ken Starr. Never corresponded with him. Never did anything with him. I was one of 12 donors, I believe, to contribute $1 million to fund a chair at the school of public policy. That and the school of law were what he was invited to head. And, just like everybody else, I read about it in the newspaper.

As a quick aside, at one time Peperdine wanted to name the law school the Richard Milhous Nixon School of Law. But after what happened to Nixon, they wanted to call it the Richar M. Scaife School of Law. I said, "No way, forget that." I was just as happy that didn't happen.

Why do you suppose it has been reported that you were personally involved in encouraging Starr to join Pepperdine University?
Well, that takes us back to the media and distortion. Look, I was so happy that Starr was leaving the investigation and taking the job at Pepperdine that I headlines it in my own newspaper. I mean, I wasn't hiding anything. I thought it was tremendous. Get the guy out of there! Let's get somebody in there to do something.

You genuinely believe there's something out there to find, don't you?
I firmlly believe there's a lot out there, yes.

Such as?
Let's talk about Vincent Foster. I don't know what happened to Vincent Foster, but I do know it didn't happen the was the investigation came out. He was the highest-ranking administration official to die under mysterious circumstances in decades. And what's more, this was the president's best friend. It just doesn't figure.

What is served by bringing this up over and over? Here's a man who was the president's friend. He has a family that's still living. Why keep the issue on the front burner?
That's an excellent question, and I'll give you the answer I gave several years ago. It is the Rosetta stone to the Clinton administration. Once you solve that one mystery, you'll know wverything that's going on or went on.

But how can you make that premise when detailed investigations have concluded that Vincent Foster was a sad man under sad circumstances who was depressed and took his own life?
Well, if you read his doctor's report, he wasn't sad. That, I believe, was a complete fabrication by the Clinton administration. They said, "This is the way it's going to be."

Well, that kind of interpretation of the Foster case led to one of the more famous allegation in 1998, which was Hillary Clinton's charge of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" to undo the Clinton presidency. Does sucha conspiracy exist?
If there is one, I don't know of it.

But countless connections have been made among lawyers for Paula Jones and Ken Starr, the Federalist Society and Linda Tripp. Coudl all these really be just a coincidence?
What connections? I mean, sure, you can go back to Ken Starr's law firm and say that he represented big tobacco and that big tobacco gave money to the Republicans. But that's not a conspiracy. Now, is there a vast left-wing conspiracy? I would certainly say yes to that.

If there is no collaboration, how do you explain the fact that you have funded a network of organizations, all of which seem to have at least some focus on toppling the Clinton presidency?
No. [Clinton supporters] made it into that. Our foundations have been in business a long time, a lot longer than the Clinton presidency. Again, we're simply presenting ideas that most colleges and universities and television don't promote.

Judicial Watch is one of the groups that you've funded. What attracted you to them
They're doing the work Janet Reno ought to be doing. It's almost a shadow Justice Department.

How do you respond to the claim that people can't go to Washington to work in public office anymore without a lawyer?
You can't get a credit card at Sears without a lawyer.

But you fund Judicial Watch, which is—
A one-man organization, not like the 100 lawyers working for Clinton. Obviously, Larry Klayman [chairman of Judicial Watch] ust be doing good work, or you wouldn't be asking about him.

When you heard Hillary Clinton use the term "vast right-wing conspiracy," were you offended by that?
I don't think you can print what I thought. [Laughs]

Well, how do you know Mrs. Clinton was talking specifically about you? She didn't mention any names.
Mr. Kennedy, when you reach my age, you'll understand. Look, the Clinton's put our a 320-page report a year and a half ago, and my name was on every page. Next they figured they had to blame somebody for Bill Clinton's indiscretions, so Hillary decided it would be this vast right-wing conspiracy.

Given some of the things that have been said about President Clinton, the right-wing conspiracy comment is rather tame by comparison, wouldn't you say?
Not if the comments about Clinton were true.

Haven't you published things in your papers that have proved to be untrue? Are you prepared to say that everything you publish is true?
No, of course not.

So what's the difference?
My papers serve only the people of western Pennsylvania. Bill Clinton serves the world.

Perhaps, but truth shouldn't be a relative commodity. You claim you have also been victimiezed in the press. Aren't you considering suing Time magazine?
Yes, we are contemplating a libel suit. They published a cartoon of me with dollars coming out of every pocket, bribing David Hale. I mean, that was so blatant.

But again, one of your writers, Chris Ruddy, has engaged in extremely harsh commentary about the president, whether it's true or not. And Ruddy is your agent.
No, I would deny that.

He works for you. He's your star reporter.
And I'm damn proud of him.

So how can you be so thin-skinned when it comes back at you? You've made yourself a fairly high-profile target by virtue of the people in you employ. Doesn't it seem ironic that you would bristle when you are similarly characterized, whether fairly or unfairly?
But you talk about poor old Bill and Hillary being paranoid. Listen, he can order people done away with at his will. He's got the entire federal government behind him. And I'm just a guy sitting out here.

Right—a simple little publisher. Come one, you command a great deal of resources, and a lot of people look to you for leadership. You're not exactly Joe Six-Pack.
No, I'm not Joe Six-Pack, but only by the accident of birth. In truth, I'm essentially a shy individual.

Fair enough, but you still have power. So it's hard to believe that this huge inequity exists between your position and the president's.
But I'm not elected.

Do you believe that you and the organizations you fund have been responsible, directly or indirectly, for diminishing the institution of the presidency?
The so-called attacks haven't been on the presidency. They've been on Bill Clinton, the leader.

True, but haven't you crossed a line where you can now say whatever the hell you want about the president?
Isn't that guaranteed by the Constitution?

How do you feel about Clinton personally? Do you genuinely hate him?
I certainly do not hate him. I respect the office of the presidency, and my wife and I told him that when we went to a reception at the White House [in January 1998].

What was it like to see him in person?
I didn't realize how tall he was.

Was it awkward?
Not at all. Of course, I did have somebody taste my food before I touched it. [Laughs] But, no, it wasn't awkward at all. He was very friendly. Then again, this was the same day that the Lewinsky scandal had broken, so he had just been through a very, very busy day. People were pushed through that line pretty fast.

So if you don't personally dislike Clinton, what's your beef?
I just want the facts. I want the truth to come out about Whitewater. And Travelgate. And the billing of the Rose Law Firm—whether Mrs. Clinton did anything illegal. I think there's been a massive cover-up about what Bill Clinton's administration has been doing, and what he was doing when he was governor of Arkansas.

Do you think you'd feel this way about any Democratic president?
No. I didn't feel that way about Jimmy Carter. I sure wasn't a fan of Carter's, but he certainly wasn't an embarrassment the way Clinton is.

What do you think about the public's obvious apathy with regrd to the Clinton scandals? You charge him with everything from perjury to murder, and two presidential elections later, he's still in the Oval Office.
Yes, but you're forgetting to mention who the candidates were.

Still, do you honestly feel the man is as bad as you paint him?
I've got this item on my desk that I got out of a newsletter I never even heard of. It lists the deaths in the Clinton administration. Have you ever seen this list?

No, I haven't.
God, there must be 60 people on there who have died mysteriously—including eight of Clinton's former bodyguards. In helicopter crashes. I mean, ther have been very mysterious deaths. I don't want to belabor [the death of] Ron Brown, but there is the story in which Brown went into the Oval Office and said, "They're coming after me, and I'm not going to tkae this. And I'm going to take people down with me. So what am I going to do?" And Clinton got up and, right out of The Godfather, folded his arms and said, "That's nice." And a week later Brown was dead.

You actually believe there is a connection?
Yeah, I do. And the people in the Air Force—whoever took the photographs, pathologists, and so forth—questioned the cause of Brown's death. And a great many of the black leaders also questioned it. They were protesting outside the White House, but then Lewinsky came along and swept the whole thing away.

As a Libertarian, how can you reconcile the notion of a federally appointed prosecutor probing the most intimate details of someone's personal life?
But I don't think the Lewinsky matter is the most important thing. I would have gone after Travelgate. And Filegate. I could care less about Monica Lewinsky. It's funny, but I don't think that really does much to damage the presidency.

These issues are clearly important to you, so why keep such a low profile?
Because I'm a very private person. And, as I said before, I think I'm essentially shy. It runs in my family.

So it's not part of a grand design?
No.

Are you recognized when you walk around the city?
I am now, thanks to CNN.

And Geraldo.
Yes, and Geraldo. What a scumbag he is. He talks to Alan Dershowitz on the air, and Dershowitz says something like, "You've done a great public service, Geraldo, by beinging out the facts about Mr. Scaife being investigated by a grand jury in Arkansas." I mean, really.

But, in all fairness, couldn't one say that Geraldo is no more than the Left's answer to your ace reporter, Chris Ruddy.
No.

Why not?
Because Chris is a man of integrity. He was head of his school union in New York and he wanted to change the world, as it were. Geraldo is out for himself, nothing else. He's slease journalism.

What happens to conservatism in a post-Clinton world? After all, so much of the Republicans' unity has been about their common hatred of the president.
For one thing, I don't hate Clinton. But after Clinton leaves office, we'll probably get back to where we should have been in '98.

Which is?
Talking about the issues—education, Social Security, and the defense of this country. Do you realize we are a sitting duck for missiles from North Korea or China? We must rebuild our armed forces. Clinton keeps talking about how he's reduced the size of the federal governemtn, but he's also reduced the number of soldiers and airmen and sailors we have. So we better start rebuilding.