Kevin Roberts: I’m just a script-reader, so don’t blame me
How did Kevin Roberts get to be the head of the Heritage Foundation in the first place? Is it an example of the Peter Principle?
He now seems to be saying some version of gee, don’t blame me for my boneheaded comments; I didn’t do my own research, I didn’t compose them, and I was just told by an aide to read them.
You think I’m exaggerating what he said? You be the judge [emphasis mine]:
“I made a mistake and I let you down and I let down this institution. Period. Full Stop,” Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts told the staff of the conservative think tank on Wednesday …
Roberts said he was willing to resign but felt a “moral obligation” to repair the situation and had told the organization’s board of directors: “I made the mess, let me clean it up.” …
While Roberts stated unequivocally in his original video that the Heritage Foundation would never cancel “our friends,” he said Wednesday he should have made clear there was a “limiting principle.”
“You can say you’re not going to participate in canceling someone … while also being clear you’re not endorsing everything they’ve said, you’re not endorsing softball interviews, you’re not endorsing putting people on shows, and I should’ve made that clear.”
One limiting principle would be to research the issue before issuing statements on behalf of the organization. Admitting that he still “didn’t know much about this Fuentes guy,” Roberts explained that he simply trusted his now-former chief of staff to do his thinking for him. “This is an explanation, not an excuse,” Roberts told Heritage staff:
Roberts said his former chief of staff, Ryan Neuhaus, who has since resigned, wrote the script for the video and deceived him into believing colleagues had approved the message. “Our former chief of staff had the pen,” he said. “When the script was presented to me … I understood from our former colleague that it was approved, it was signed off on by the handful of colleagues who are part of that. Still my fault, I should have had the wisdom to say, ‘Time out, let’s double check this.’”
The other day, after watching Roberts being interviewed by Dana Loesch, I wrote this:
I watched the Loesch interview with Roberts last night. I found him extremely unimpressive; she was quite good. He kept going on and on with his strawman about not “canceling” Fuentes or Carlson. Meanwhile, he ignored the fact that the real objection was that Carlson gave Fuentes only a little pushback and the interview mainly functioned to legitimize the vile Fuentes rather than challenge him. …
In the interview with Loesch I got the distinct impression that Roberts had not watched the Carlson interview before he gave that pro-Carlson statement. He looked utterly stunned when Loesch mentioned what Carlson had said about detesting Christian Zionists more than he detests anyone on earth.
And now I’m convinced that not only had Roberts not watched Carlson’s interview with Fuentes, but he probably hasn’t watched any of Carlson’s “the Jews are purposely killing Christians!” interviews, or his “Hitler was an okay guy and Churchill was the villain” interview, or paid much attention to anything his good buddy Carlson has been doing for the last couple of years.
What does Roberts pay attention to?
There’s a certain amount of “see no evil” here and calls to mind the old saw about how your own garbage may not seem to stink.
If your whole worldview for the past decade has been built on fighting purported RINOs and woke cabals, maybe the Fuentes/Groyper thing becomes a little bit more difficult to recognize for what it is. Maybe this applies to Roberts.
I have also read that Roberts and Carlson are friends. This might explain it too. There was nothing at all objectionable about Carlson until recently. Maybe Roberts hadn’t yet admitted that he couldn’t give his friend the benefit of the doubt.
Also, who from the MAGA side of the GOP has taken the courageous stand on Tucker and Fuentes. Sure, Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz have spoken out, Steven Moore quite his Heritage position, and there have been others. All of them are “RINOs” to MAGA, however. Has anyone from MAGA said or done anything to make it clear that Fuentes and Groypers are not welcome in their movement?
Bauxite:
Who’s “from MAGA”? I’m rather amused by that. Cruz has supported Trump since long after the start of his first term.
I could waste time looking up all the “MAGA” people who had criticized Carlson et al, but I suggest you do your own homework.
If a friend starts becoming a vocal anti- Semite in the public square, telling lies about Jews and Israel, and I was the head of Heritage, I certainly would sharply criticize that friend. These are public people. Roberts’ excuse makes his behavior even worse.
Not only what does he pay attention to, but what does he do on his job? A figurehead who just reads whatever his staff writes is less than useless as this case demonstrates (assuming that excuse is actually what happened).
@Neo
To be honest I am long past the point of considering Bauxite to be acting in a good faith or even sincere manner on this issue. Whatever his past or other contributions whenever Trump or MAGA comes up he generally acts like a hateful troll spreading demonization, signal boosting opposition messaging and even downright libelous crap if he thinks it will help him. And what is worse is I am long past the point of being able to believe Bauxite is even doing so in sincere belief he is accurate in his claims.
Which is why I no longer merely call Bauxite stupid, incompetent, hateful, or TDS suffering, though all of those are true when it comes to this. I believe him to be a gaslighting liar, and I think the evidence is solid there.
I’m pretty sure even Bauxite is vaguely aware of all the “MAGA people” who have criticized or even condemned Carlson and definitely have condemned Fuentes, and who would have condemned Carlson for platforming him as the late Charlie Kirk did. Bauxite I think is not bringing them up out of ignorance, but malice. If he cannot crop “MAGA” to be the strawman of his fever dreams, his demonization becomes blatantly false and his tactics become indefensible.
(Of course I don’t doubt that there are some parts of MAGA -especially those more fixed on Trump or particularly Vance, or of the more Paleocon leaning – that have condemned Cruz etc. al. as RINOs, whether for htis or others. But believing they are in the majority is simply stupid.).
Note how Bauxite does not mention Legal Insurrection, or Ace of Spades HQ, or a host of others. Note also how in this long passage he pointedly regurgitated NPR and so on claims that Khalil was a legal immigrant and that you were wrong on the law without *EVER ONCE* going to a primacy source legal document on the matter such as the Judge’s ruling showing how Khalil had obtained his Green Card fraudulently through lying about his identity and previous actions, thus rendering the Green Card invalid and himself an illegal immigrant.
https://thenewneo.com/2025/11/01/a-few-ruminations-on-the-latest-fight-on-the-right-involving-the-heritage-foundation/#comment-2828837
https://thenewneo.com/2025/11/01/a-few-ruminations-on-the-latest-fight-on-the-right-involving-the-heritage-foundation/#comment-2828859 (This part two is where I break down the issues of immigration law and link the judgement that Bauxite took pains to never mention, thus showing how among other things Bauxite was provably wrong about Khalil being a “legal immigrant” rather than merely one fraudulently impersonating one as a result of the fraudulent nature of their Green Card answers).
I am more than willing to assume good faith or honesty in the absence of evidence to the contrary. But I think that no longer can apply with Bauxite on this subject.
CC™ is our (actually neo’s) little checked pants troll, and has been for at least seven years.
I suspect they hired Roberts because he had a previous history as an administrator. Trouble is, he has no policy chops. And, as we can see, he doesn’t think on his feet well.
==
IMO, Heritage should quit subidizing pundits and save their salary money for people who can produce studies and provide lay summaries of them. If they want to be outre, they can re-hire Jason Richwine and offer a WFH deal to Steven Sailer.
Ahh yes… the age old Sergeant Schultz defense. Of course the downside to that old chestnut is that you’re presenting yourself as incompetent. Is Heritage salvageable?
@Bauxite
While ironic coming from you given your conduct here and what you are about to write, I agree. Which is one reason I find Roberts’s conduct here to be repulsive, though not moreso than Carlson’s. If Roberts wished for some kind of graceful exit or past I’d cut all ties with Carlson, fire my Chief of Staff, hire back the Antisemite Task Force and tell them to select one of their number as the next Director, and then voluntarily demote myself. Demote because while it would be a painful move and set back it would be less than outright quitting from the organization entirely and signal sincerity and commitment (however true either of those might be) and leave open the prospect of working the way back up the greasy pole to Director or some other role again.
But that is another issue.
I detect projection. Especially given the deeply poor timing of this with the loss of several moderate or anti-Trump Republicans in places like Georgia and New York City. Sure there may be some of what you describe here, but the idea they are a majority of MAGA – least of all the Protestant and Jewish men – and often Black and Hispanic Men – that have been some of the most effective converts to MAgA lately is pure stupidity on your part.
Sure, if you had virtually no contact with the digital space whatsoever or just encountered them through Carlson’s laundering of them just now. But even then I doubt it. Even most of the 4chan /pol/ Neo-Nazis object to Fuentes on grounds like his Racialist Catholic Identitarianism (in a society that is still plurality Protestant) and his Stalin shilling, ties with the “Woke Left” (again supporting Kamala alongside others like Richard Spencer), and ties to Islamists. And if you think 4Chan /pol/ Neo-Nazis are most of MAGA, you are not merely out of touch but a fool.
It’s definitely possible, given other stuff like Heritage’s soft pedaling on the Kremlin and this.
Agreed, and it goes a fair bit of a way to explain why it took so long for Carlson and Owens and so on to get condemned by the likes of Kirk, D’Souza, and Prager even if they very obviously did not agree with them on things like the Groypers, Cooper, Israel, Jews, or Sharia Law.
I wouldn’t go that far. We’ve been needling Carlson’s particular brand of nonsense here for a couple years, and there’s something objectionable about everyone.
But there’s a difference between even an appeasing isolationist on one hand and whatever the heck this particular flavor of anti-Jewish pro-Resistance Bloc pro-Kremlin nonsense is.
Possible, but the bigger issue is why he had nobody else indicating this, and also that this was hardly the first warning sign even under the Heritage Banner. No matter what this was a failure.
…. and so we get to the real purpose Bauxite had for writing this comment. Continued pursuit of the Great Orange Whale and demonizing those of us who dared to disagree and have a better grasp on events. Leaving aside how Trump has publicly broken with Carlson and Bannon over the Jew Hatred and the strikes on Iran and even condemned and criticized them.
It’s amazing what questions you can ask when you ignore the evidence and answers. Or particularly those that do not fit your agenda.
Not mentioned: Legal Insurrection’s William A. Jacobson, Mary Chastain, and a host of others, Marco Rubio (who was much more frequently a target of RINO back before Trump’s election but which has died off, not unlike Huckabee and to a lesser extent Cruz and DeSantis), Dinesh D’Souza (who went to prison over Obama and Clinton’s BS), the Shapiros, Ace of Spades HQ, Dennis Prager, and a host of others.
Now sure, I’ll be willing to admit among “MAGA” that there are probably a very small portion of the group that would label all of those as RINOs. But not many.
This is doubly so because of how toxic this is. While Carlson might be able to appeal to a particular brand of Isolationism, Paleocon tendencies, or the like, Fuentes is an open NatBol Catholic Racist with an ego complex and actual unironic Misogyny who freely admits that he is not Conservative or on the Right, and who partners with Jihadis. While Carlson shot himself in the foot by picking a fight with “Christian Zionists” and condemning them in worse terms than Nazis, Communists, and Islamists.
What does Fuentes have to offer to even the NPR’s Caricature of the Proud Boys like their leader Enrique Tarrio, or to Dinesh D’Souza? Even if they wanted to join with Fuentes they could not.
Ironically you are imitating the very dishonest, disingenuous, bad faith “Just Asking Questions” Bullshitting Carlson did here and that got him into so much trouble. I’ll admit it is for a significantly less odious purpose, but still utterly disgraceful. You are smearing the vast majority of people here and in the MAGA camp as being OK with this when in reality most couldn’t be even if they wanted to (and again, most don’t).
Neo is correct in their response to this particular flavor of “Have you stopped beating your wife recently?” begging the question bullshit. First define what “from MAGA” or “MAGA” means, then get back to us.
And then you can try and explain how Trump himself shitting publicly on Carlson as “Kooky Tucker Carlson” and denouncing Fuentes before and after the ill fated (and stupid) dinner does not apply.
So if you want this world of yours to turn about you
And you can see exactly what to do, don’t blame me
I’m just a script-reader in the Heritage band
–The Moody Blues, “I’m Just A Singer (In A Rock And Roll Band)”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_J-hmyAS6c
___________________________________________
Couldn’t resist.
The Moodies were psychedelic utopians, sure, but they had some sense of their place in the world.
And they were loyal to their fans, which counts for me.
Kate:
Well, he edits excruciatingly wonky (meaning boring) books like “Mandate for Leadership 2025”. What a waste of money that was….
Roberts is indeed an example of the Peter Principle.
Carlson’s comments reveal that he embraces the filth his guests spew.
Like Roberts and to my chagrin, I now realize that his show on FOX consisted of being told what to say. His ‘talent’ lay in reading off the script skillfully.
Fuentes must be ecstatic about how easy it was to blow up the Heritage Foundation. I’m not completely surprised about how clueless Roberts was about Fuentes. I never paid much attention to him either but he does have a large following among young men where his Jew hatred is distressingly popular.
As far as I know, Tucker is still scheduled to be a featured speaker at TPUSA’s Amfest next month. I know Charlie Kirk was insistent on inviting Tucker to speak but I wonder if the Fuentes interview might have changed his mind. I imagine that TPUSA is a mess behind the scenes with many of their young staffers likely fans of Tucker, Candace or Fuentes.
I’ve been to Amfest a couple of times and enjoyed myself. I listened to Tucker’s speeches and he appeared to be humble and reasonable. He is obviously anything but humble and reasonable now and it is disappointing to see people like Megyn Kelly and Matt Walsh defend him out of loyalty. The rhetoric he supports through his “just asking questions” bs is toxic. There is no joining forces with people like Tucker, Fuentes or Candace. They will take down anyone that gets close to them.
Far too much commentary on this based on far too little content. People need to hold fire where matters of motive are involved, and when the evidence is indirect.
I will take issue with neo’s argument that Roberts’s citing cancellation is “a strawman”. I’m sorry, but the line “You have freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences” was a standard play of the left in closing down debates on colleges.
I also dislike the widening gyre here.
– Fuentes is terrible. – Granted. I couldn’t watch much of the interview, as he varied between boring and annoying.
-Tucker is terrible – Well, he does show signs of that. The trouble is the softball treatment he gives crazies, but not pro-Israel people. If he were truly evenhanded (like Rogan) his guests wouldn’t matter.
-Roberts is terrible – This because he defended Tucker. ??? It have to draw the line here.
– Megyn Kelly and Matt Walsh are terrible – Because they defended Roberts. ??? Can’t others see where this is headed?
To my mind the one person who came out well from all this was Mollie Hemingway. She pointed out that Tucker actually hurt Fuentes in her case, as she’d not seen him. Now she knew she disliked him. I doubt she’s alone.
I’m seriously disappointed in Matt Walsh.
As to where this is going, well if you have a hard time deciding whether to stick with Carlson, um, Megyn and Matt, well I now know two not to bother with.
Eeyore:
You write:
And your argument is also a strawman. Do you know what that word means? If not, I’ll explain (definition from Google AI):
Roberts’ talk of “cancellation” is a strawman because – as I’ve written several times – criticizing is not cancellation. People were asking Carlson to have CRITICIZED Fuentes more during the interview, rather than to have SHOWCASED Fuentes with a softball interview that didn’t bring up a gazillion horrible things Fuentes has said he believes and didn’t even refute some horrible things Fuentes said during the interview itself (he admires Stalin, and Carlson said he’d “circle back” to discuss that further and NEVER DID). Plus, they were criticizing Carlson for things Carlson himself said about detesting Christian Zionists above all else. Heritage is – or used to be – full of Christian Zionists.
Those caps are for clarity and emphasis. Because your own strawman argument was this: that Carlson’s critics on the right are trying to close down debate. No; they are demanding debate, a debate Carlson did not have. If you’re going to interview Fuentes at all, critique him properly or risk being thought to be on his side. And if Carlson is on his side, then Carlson himself isn’t someone they should be platforming or praising. They are free to critique him, and should, and this does not step on Carlson’s right to free speech.
What’s more, no one has a right to be platformed or to be part of any organization or group. If I run a group like Heritage, I can certainly break the group’s association with Nazis. That’s not the same as telling people to harass them, kill them, beat them, harm their family, silence them, or throw them into jail. nor does it mean you are telling anyone else not to employ them.
Each person makes his or her own decision about whom to associate with, and so does each organization.
Also, Ace has some interesting thoughts about cancellation here.
The problem with ‘cancel culture’ is that administrators at institutes of higher education allowed student mobs to prevent others from speaking, others invited by the institutions constituents. Other games they played were to pretend the institution’s security staff was some sort of fee-for-service operation for which outside speakers or student groups had to pay. You could argue that private institutions have plenary discretion over whom they permit on their campuses. That’s true, but the manipulative and mendacious characters who populate administrations are not the proper formulator of institutional policy on this point, only the board of trustees is. The vast majority of these places are run by liars who are unwilling to admit that their institutions are in fact sectarian.
==
Heritage is not any kind of common carrier. Everyone with an affiliation gives the outsider a sense of what it is permissible to advocate and not advocate under the aegis of Heritage (with the institutional line a subset of that). If TC wants to step outside the boundaries, that’s his prerogative, but he’s departed the Heritage circle if he does so. (Again, why are policy shops sponsoring pundits?).
==
It would be agreeable if the board of Heritage made clear that poisonous remarks about evangelical subsets, Nazi cosplay, and malicious pseudohistory courtesy of articulate randos were outside the circle. As for Roberts, they might just hire a director with policy chops whose avocation is not tripping over this untied shoelaces.
==
As to why Tucker takes an interest in this shizz, age does nasty things to some people. (See Ron Unz).
Not sure this is unknown, but at this stage it seems like another world:
I’m in good shape, says the doc, for eighty which is good news but not a compliment. I can remember things and take care of the woodpile. I was in college going on sixty years ago. Seems like a different world.
When Rockwell, then head of the American Nazi party, came to speak at Michigan State and warn us of how we were being cheated by Jews because Heinze had to pay a rabbi to certify the ketchup was kosher and the cost was passed on to us, the campus turned out in support of Jews and Israel. I think Rockwell had other issues, too, but that one sticks. Many of us had Stars of David arm bands. We assured our Jewish friends we had their six.
Nothing, nothing within light years of the immense, nearly infinite reservoirs of hate like that which followed the Oct 7 massacre. (How do you hate victims of a massacre? Is that new or have I missed something?)
Many of us were sons and/or niece/nephews of WW II veterans. Those who weren’t had grown up surrounded by them and had classmates with such background. So we had a kind of more-or-less informed view and were impressed with the Six-Day War. Why did it actually last six days? Said a Lebanese friend; “The Jews rented their tanks from U-Haul and got a discount if they returned them in less than a week.” Good for a laugh.
I shudder to think what would have happened on our campus if any version of the Free Palestine or Death to Israel crowd had shown up. There were not enough police to separate us.
Consider this happened during the thickest of the anti-Viet Nam era.
What in the world has has changed?
Which brings us to applying the question to Owens and Carlson as well.
Roberts: Tell us you’re an empty suit acting as an empty figurehead for Heritage without actually saying so. But did/does Heritage know this?
What happened when I wasn’t looking?
It’s simple: Roberts needs to resign or be fired.
@Foxhuntingman
Agreed. Even the most benign interpretation of this speaks to staggering inadequacy in preparation and diligence. If I were him I would try to engineer a quick face saving piece and appeals to get some old members in before demoting myself in favor of say one of the Antisemitism Task Force members (so while demoted j would still be in Heritage), but if he fails to do that he should go entirely.
I am still willing to give Kevin Roberts the benefit of the doubt. And a chance to redeem himself.
He admitted he made a mistake or misjudgment, even if the language he used in his apology seems less sincere or more proforma than some would like.
He came in and directed Heritage to a more forceful promotion of conservatism and a “MAGA like” direction. He also leads the Heritage Action 501(c )4 lobbying and legislation influencing side of Heritage. I like the successes resulting from that effort and orientation, but none of us is perfect. I know that I have thought, said, and done a few really stupid things over the years.
It seems some would like to cancel Roberts for him not cancelling Carlson.
But friendships are sometimes subtle and complicated relationships, often more valuable and rare than we might like to admit. Two people that seem to have “hit it off” for whatever reason or rationale might well be loath to toss that aside for “light or transient causes”. We already have had major discussions on this site about family and friends separating because of TDS or related Leftist idiocy or insanity. Roberts may end up distancing himself from Carlson, or try to avoid that and preserve their friendship. Roberts may even feel he owes it to Carlson to be one who might persuade Carlson to alter his views*. Perhaps Walsh or Kelly or others are hoping they can play that role, too.
*In reference to antisemitism, I have never understood how or why that viewpoint has any validity whatever, whether blaming a larger population of Jews for the crowd that said “give us Barabbas” or the logical desire to return to Judea/Samaria and reestablish their homeland [recognizing that all homelands have been established either by force or migration and settlement of relatively empty areas – or both.]
R2L:
As I’ve explained many times, cancellation of Carlson is not the issue in terms of what people are wanting from Roberts. He didn’t even criticize Carlson, although he should have; not even for Carlson saying he (Carlson) detests Christian Zionists. Nor did Roberts do his homework; instead, he read words from a script.
And some of Roberts’ own words were anti-Semitic tropes such as [emphasis mine]:
The first part of the quote indicates that the people Carlson enraged are loyal to some other entity – like Israel – rather than to America or truth. That’s an extremely common accusation against Jews. Which is pretty funny considering that it’s Tucker who has been peddling lies about Israel for years. Roberts also calls the entire group venomous (Jews and those who defend them), and says it is they who are sowing division, while Roberts remained silent on the division Carlson himself sowed by his foul remarks about detesting Christian Zionists and calling them heretics.
The entire thing was an extraordinary statement by Roberts that wasn’t even necessary to preserve his “friendship” with Carlson because all Roberts had to do was keep his mouth shut – or, failing that, leave out all the nastiness about Carlson’s critics. In fact, he could have even tossed in a bit of criticism of Carlson – can we not criticize friends at all when they err?
Roberts did nothing of the sort; au contraire. Friendship with Carlson is no excuse whatsoever. Friendship is a private matter but both of these men are public figures. Carlson spoke as a public figure and so did Roberts, and in addition Roberts was speaking in his capacity as head of the Heritage Foundation, not as an individual. He should resign if his friendship gets in the way of doing what is clearly right.
And his excuse was about as sorry an admission I’ve ever heard: that he is so lazy and irresponsible he doesn’t even check the facts before he opens up his mouth in an enforced error. He needs to resign, pronto, but he’s already done an enormous amount of damage to the institution he heads.
— Art Deco
The thing is that Heritage, and most of the other think tanks and the like, Left, Right, and Other, are all part of the Washington political/social Establishment, to one degree or another. The people they hire to run them are, as AD notes, mostly professional administrators and the like. Like the rest of the whole apparat, they transcend elections, they stay and operate regardless of election wins and losses (at least for the moment).
Heritage and Brookings may be ideological opponents, but it’s a good bet their staff members routinely socialize and trade names and boost each other’s careers, ditto the rest of the power structure.
They have scripts they more or less read from.
I’m not saying there’s no sincerity, but it’s still a script, to some degree a ‘kabuki dance’. Fuentes doesn’t fit the script so they don’t know how to react. Trump produces the same effect to some degree, or did before they began to adjust their scripts for him. Bernie Sanders would disrupt their scripts if he ever actually managed to win.
Always remember the script is there.