gigot. first up this week, the politics of lying. lots of politicians do it, but when is a lie so over the line it should disqualify the teller from holding office. linda mcmahon introduced a new ad that raises that question. running against that state's attorney general richard blumenthal outed by the new york times this spring by lying about serving in vietnam. take a look. >> would you lie about serving in a war. >> we have learned something very important since the days i've served in vietnam. >> again and again. >> when we returned, we saw nothing of this gratitude. >> he covered one lie with another. >> and since the days that i served in vietnam. >> he lied about vietnam. what else is he lying about? >> joining the panel this week, wall street journal columnist and deputy editor dan henninger. dorothy rah bid wits and james toronto. and dorothy, all politicians lie or at least opponents accuse them of lying, is this ad fair? >> you mean fair being truthful? yes, it's fair. is it kind? no, it's a really perfect example and he's a perfect expression of political lying at its worst, it reveals character in a very fundamental way. you cannot say as often as he does in that, in that ad, in vietnam when we came back. can anybody be so absent minded and gotten the details of the military career, such as he did not serve in the war? and what really happened is that, this is an exposure after he was out there. >> he was in the marine reserves. >> he was in the marines, but the point is that the amount of bluster that went into defending this lie was telling, because it told you something about his attitude toward the electorate. perfectly clear expressions of what he did. >> let's get his response. we have his response when the story first broke last may, let's hear that. >> on a few occasions i have misspoke been my service and i regret that and i take full responsibility. but i will not allow -- [applaus [applause] >> i will not allow anyone to take a few misplaced words and impugn my record of service to our country. >> paul: okay, now, we have another response. this one from the debate in response to linda mcmahon. >> i described it inaccurately and i regret it. i take full responsibility for it, it was not intentional, but that is no excuse. >> paul: so, dan, were those responses different in tone, certainly, the second one a little more remorseful. >> right. >> paul: than the first. were those adequate? >> i think you'd need a ph.d. in linguistics to figure out exactly what he's saying there. i was listening to that and wondering, they say all the time. i misspoke. did the word misspoke exist before it started? it doesn't mean. >> paul: the era started. >> does it mean you didn't say the truth, it's false instead of truth and the gray area in between because they don't want to have to admit they weren't telling the truth and i think it's in large part because a lot of these politicians really don't think it matters, close enough to the truth is close enough. it's like, you know, they can say whatever they want. they can spend whatever they want, and i think they've sort of lost sight of what's the truth. >> james, is there something uniquely awful about lying about your military service, particularly in a way in which other americans died? >> i think there is, and also think there is something particular about vietnam and democrats at a certain age. you remember, john kerry came to public prominence in 1971 testifying before the senate, about the stories of war crimes and they had a story of going to cambodia in 1968 which did not-- you know, he was fighting nexten's war and nixon wasn't president. >> paul: i understand about that, and then a case of mark kirk, a republican running for senate in illinois, who at a minimum exaggerated his service in the military overseas. >> he had two very clear misstatements. he said that he'd won something called the intelligence officer of the year award which currently doesn't exist, or at least if it does, he never won it and on his website there was a statement that he had served in operation iraqi freedom. in fact, he had served, this was the same excuse, he had-- >> states side. >> during operation iraqi freedom stateside so that was-- >> what's the difference between kirk and blumenthal? >> well, i think there's a difference of degree. saying i served in vietnam, saying when we came back and repeatedly saying it is a more serious lie, but it's a fair cop on kirk, too, dorothy, is there a distinction you would draw. >> the same holds for both, that apparently inconceivable today for a politician to say, i did this because i felt in my heart a profound envy of the heroics and the interprize these great men undertook and i wished in my heart to be part of it and profounding apologize to those who lived and died and bled there and you should know this about me and this is incapable. this is total denial of the fact they lied. >> is this different, dan, than famous lies by a president saying i did not have sex with that woman. richard nixon, i knew nothing about the watergate break in. >> or nancy pelosi saying they'd never been briefed on the enhanced interrogations, what is that-- which she had abouten in 2002. i think in some level it is not. people wonder why there's a tea party, right? well, this is one of the reasons. people feel that the politicians simply aren't levelling with them on anything and it's, you know, it is a reflection of what i think dorothy said earlier, the level of character in politics today, for some reason, it's fallen. >> and still. >> paul: and still falling. all right. when we come back, are there limits to the first amendment? the supreme court hears arguments in what is shaping to be one of the most controversial cases of the new term. should even the most out r outrageous speech be protected? there's a debate ahead. but when you call... let me check. oh fud, nothing without a big miles upcharge. it's either pay their miles upcharges or connect through mooseneck! [ freezing ] i can't feel my feet. we switched to the venture card from capital one -- so no more games. let's go see those grandkids. [ male announcer ] don't pay miles upcharges. don't play games. get the flight you want with the venture card at capitalone.com. [ lovinit ] help! what's in your llet? fabulous! they ga me this great idea. yea? we mail documents all over the country, so, what if there were riority mail flat rate... envelopes? yes! you could ship to any state... or a low flat rate? ! a really low flat re. like $4.90? yes! and it uld look like a flat rate box... only flatter? like th? yo..me...geni. genius. priority ml flat rate envelopes. just $4.90. only from the postal service. a simpler way to ship. . . >> juliet: the supreme court heard oral arguments this week in what is shaping up to be one of the most controversial cases of the new term. it involves a kansas-based westboro baptist church and pastor fred phelps, whose congregation crosses the country and carrying signs and slogans, thank god for dead soldiers and god hates fags and they believe the u.s. deaths in afghanistan and iraq are god's punishment for america's tolerance of homosexuality. in 2006 the church members protested oust the funeral of mathieu schneider who was killed in iraq. matthew's father sued claiming the church violated the family's privacy and inflicted severe emotional distress, the jury awarded him millions and, the court said they were protected by first amendment. >> paul: i think we can agree that the protesters are despicable, why isn't their speech protected by the first amendment? >> well, that is the question and i don't think it is, but we-- this is about the fifth blatant case of this sort in memory and we won't go into all of them, but we're faced with increasing proof that we're shackled by blind obedience and here is the slippery slope if we disallow this kind of free speech. where will it take us? the first amendment is not intended to shackle us to the most extreme and bizarre positions in the interest of free speech. so now we're facing the rights of terrorists to use the first amendment for all of the most nefarious 'causes and we have the supreme court allowing crush porn videos with small animals butchered before our very eyes in the interest of free expression. >> paul: there have always been limits the supreme court has allowed on free speech. the fighting words doctrine, you can't libel somebody are defame that, hard to prove, but nonetheless you have that in law. why is this case in particular something that you think we should be-- that the kind of speech that should be banned? >> well, in particular because it's the most targeted speech, targeted hate speech of this kind. targeted, and it's one of the exceptions. but we don't know how this is going to play out in the supreme court. >> we sure don't. uncertain based on the oral argument which way it's going to go. >> we do know the great weight of the entire range of fervent extreme first amendment purists which have been driving us. look at the separation of church and state. look what's happened to the clause. >> do i hear a first amendment defender here? >> yes. it's true that a lot of the landmark cases involving first amendment for the supreme court above really loathsome characters, nazis, pornographers, communists and these guys. and the reason for that is because in this country we don't sensor speech that isn't terribly offensive. if you get countries like canada and many countries in europe at that don't have the robust free speech protections that we have, you see people like mark stein, a commentator who has written for our page brought up on crazy charges for canadian human rights. >> paul: for essentially uttering an opinion, saying things that were true. >> yes, about islam and then being called up on anti-islamic hate speech. so the fact that these extremists are the ones that fight the battle, means that free speech is for all of us. >> and some defended the right of publications that print the image of muhammad ridiculed and the average muslim say i feel that offensive, but should be able to do that. that example that we were talking about was people protesting at this soldier's funeral. look, if people want to stand out in front of this building and say it's good when soldiers die they should be able to do that. but if you're going to stand 500 feet from a prominent-- >> a thousand yards, i believe. >> and let's say even a prominent public figure's daughter is being married and hold up signs saying mary jones is an slut. >> they weren't saying that mr. mathieu schneider. this was about the war, about homosexuality, not about anything about these to-- >> intrude on private events by private individuals like this. >> they were regulated outside of a thousand feet. they couldn't come up to their face. >> a thousand feet. you should not be able to assault a private event like a funeral or a wedding being held by a private individual. >> because-- >> this man, the plaintiff, did not encounter them at the funeral, he saw them later on television. >> and the father. >> mr. snyder. >> albert snyder. there you go, dan, what do you do? >> and to pick up dorothy's point, because of the web, because of television, these adults are seen by everybody and i think we're putting a really impossible burden on the first amendment to protect all of this kind of behavior millions a line is drawn somewhere. >> but do you want judges drawing that line, dan? >> i would like to see the supreme court try to draw that line not your average judge. >> if you cannot have in this thriving, bustling, contentious democracy any faith in the individual sense of decency of what may not be allowed, we are not after all canada. we are not these other countries. we are the united states of america, and you cannot believe in the-- and then we are in you believe interest. the reason we're the united states of america is because we have the first amendment. >> i don't think entirely the case, i think we have a sense of bustling democracy and the first amendment is one of the shackles for the purists. >> we've got to go. >> all right. >> speaking as one of purists, when we come back, the school reform goes to the left and al gore's global warming movie "inconvenient truth", in this film "waiting for superman", the education film. he joins us next. gecko: good news sir, i just got an email from the office and word is people really love our claims service. gecko: 'specially the auto repair xpress. repairs are fast and they're guaranteed for as long as you own your car. boss: hey, that's great! is this your phone? gecko: yeah, 'course. boss: but...where do you put...i mean how do you...carry... waitress: here you go. boss: thanks! gecko: no, no i got it, sir. anncr: geico. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance. >> well, the school reform is getting-- the academy award winning director behind al gore's movie "an inconvenient truth" is turning attention on the public schools. the latest film "waiting for superman" takes a devastating look inside a system that's failed generations of children. >> he think about 60,000 people have gone to the school, 40,000 didn't graduate. this is the damage the school has done to this neighborhood. a child that didn't finish high school will learn less and eight times more likely to go prison. and the only chance of going to a great school is being picked in the lottery. >> if they don't get in, is there another chance. >> no. >> david joins me, and i have to say i found your film heart breaking and infuriating at the same time. what's the man message you're trying to leave with your audience. >> the reason why it's selling out in new york and l.a., it's actually moving and the people who see the movie are enspired by the parents. we followed a mother in harlem, but also, five children and their-- >> white middle class family in california and every parent is fighting to get their kid a great education. it's the classic american story that everyone can attach themselves too. the problem is to find a great school they have to submit themselves to a lottery and so there are winners and losers and that seems to be the thing pa people are responding to, it's just unamerican. >> paul: what brought you, got you into the film? because this problem has not-- is not new. we have 26 years ago we had the report a nation at risk and the public schools were failing. we've had battles over school of choice everywhere, why are you getting into this now? >> well, you know, a participant media who funded the movie. asked me to make a film about public education and i said i don't think you can do it, too difficult. like the story telling quagmire and the next morning i'm packing my kids up in my mini van and taking them to the great private school and counting the public. >> paul: this is in los angeles. >> and the schools in my aren't doing as much as they can. we have to get over the mentality of taking care of your own kid. we have to take care of every kid. it affects the price of your home and the kids and they're not skilled laborers, not innovators, our economy is basically screwed and bill gates talks about it eloquently in the movie. >> paul: you talk about the teachers unions in the movie and teacher randy weingarten. if there's a villain in the film i think she's it. the american federation of teacher. lots of good schools in the country and great teachers and more and more interesting solution driven contracts and i think that the fact that none of this is represented in the film is a problem with the film. i don't have a problem with it myself, but i have a problem with that. >> i'm actually a fan of randy and we met after the film and tell us where we got it wrong. i don't think we'll agree with everything in the movie, but i want everybody to get to the table. i want all the adults. the system works for a lot of adults for the union. >> paul: for the teachers. >> the political parties, taking a lot of money. for people like me who take our kids to private school. it kind of works, but people who steck their heads in the sand and say i'm okay. but millions of kids are failing and cuts across both political parties and i think that randy deserves actually a lot of credit and actually pushed her union further than it would normally go in contracts in baltimore, new haven, d.c. i want to push her further, but i want to push all the adults. i don't think it's just about her. i'm a member of a great union, i believe in unions. >> paul: do you think the movie is unfair to all teachers? does it brand all teachers at fault? >> no, some of the people that say extreme things haven't seen the movie or they don't want you to see-- the movie is ecumenical. it really is. >> paul: i would agree, you make that distinction. >> and it's for everybody, and if it's pro anything, it's pro these kids, you just want daisy, who wants to be a doctor, to win. you want anthony, who wants it make his grandmother proud, to win and i think this is an issue that's actually going to push past the mid terms because it's something that everyone can agree, we're not doing enough for these kids. >> one of the things, points you make, which makes it interesting, you go beyond the inner cities and talk about suburban schools. suburban schools work for the top performing kids, but let down the middle and poorest performing kids and schools still look like they're doing well because the test scores average out. >> that's the big redeal in the movie the idea that you can move to a suburban, buy a million dollar home and the family we followed, the average home a million dollars and the schools is one of the top rated in news week. you learn that the top 10 or 15% are serving-- they're tracking and those kids will do pretty well and get the best teachers. but the bottom 75%, you know, they are not going to be prepared to go-- even if they get into a four year college they're not going to be ready they have to be remediated and the idea that we can sort of take care of our own is over now. it's a problem that's eroding into other schools edo you think that the unions are the central problem here that have to be overcome? what, is that the main-- >> i would say, i would spread the blame and i do in the movie. the union piece is a thing that people like to report about, but i start by blaming all the adults and start with myself and i say i take my kids to a private school, but training the ideals i live by and i talk about the democratic party how it takes a ton of money and the democratic party should have been taking care of the little guy and the republican party and state legislators. >> paul: complicit. >> very complicit and the unions, huge bureaucracy so we have to sort of smash all that down and we have to rededicate ourselves to like thinking about all the daisy's. for every daisy like a million girls out there to need a great school and the same thing. we have to rededicate ourselves, who is at the table negotiating for the kids. >> paul: all right, david guggenheim thanks for coming in. >> my pleasure. >> paul: we have to take one more break. when we come back, hits and misses of the week. >> time now for hits and misses of the week. dorothy. >> yes, while an abridging speech. shahzad was sentenced to. >> paul: the would-be times square bomber. >> sentenced to life in prison not before getting a vicious opportunity to speak of his murderous intentions and this is the exactly reason that shahzad and mohammed-- and the 9/11-- ksm should not be given criminal trials in court, they're allowed to speak. what he should have been able to do, yes i understand the sentence and given shackles and marched away. >> paul: all right. >> a group showing a teacher pushing a button and blowing up student who didn't care about reducing carbon emissions. they say it's comedy, it's not funny. it's depraved totalitarian violence. >> all right. dan. >> missed the reporter bob woodward, the latest to float the idea that hillary clinton should replace joe biden on the 2012 ticket. this of course was denied all around. why would hillary clinton jump on to the deck of a sinking ship? but i for one would really miss joe biden. i think the obama presidency has gotten kind of grim and it would be unbearably grim wasn't around saying he'd like to strangle republicans, say it ain't so, joe. >> paul: hillary clinton might want to leave the administration before she would take that job or maybe secretary of defense, but the vp, i don't see that happening. >> no way. >> paul: all right. and remember, if you have your own hit or miss, please send it to us at jer@fo