Right wing war hawks recently had some fun mocking part of President Obama’s theory of leadership which a top aide described as “leading from behind.” (Nelson Mandela also espoused this particular idea of leadership, although it’s unclear if these same war hawks mocked him for it as well.)

It’s also unclear what they found so wrong with this idea. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, quoted in a recent New Yorker article analyzing Obama’s foreign policy, may have stumbled on the conundrum for the right. Referring to the situation in Libya, Clinton said, “[F]or those who want to see the United States always acting unilaterally, it’s not satisfying,” she said, “for the world we’re trying to build, where we have a lot of responsible actors who are willing to step up and lead, it is exactly what we should be doing.”

Put former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty (R) in that camp. Pawlenty has been all over the airwaves recently attacking Obama on Libya and yesterday on a local Chicago radio show, the likely 2012 GOP presidential candidate straight up said that he opposes Obama’s multilateralism:

PAWLENTY: And then of course the president subordinated our decision-making interests in Libya to the United Nations. And I don’t think a president in our country should ever subordinate or decision making to the United Nations when it comes to the [inaudible] of our military. So, I think the better strategy would’ve been to do it quickly and decisively when that moment window of opportunity appeared.

Listen here:

If the United States went to war in Libya without international sanction, it would have absolutely no legitimacy and could quite possibly be considered illegal (see: Iraq, 2002-2003). But who was it that got the UN to agree to a resolution authorizing something stronger than a no-fly zone? The United States:

[T]he [U.S.] U.N. envoy quietly proposed transforming a tepid resolution for a no-fly zone into a permission for full-scale military intervention in Libya. Some officials thought it was a trick. Was it possible that the Americans were trying to make the military options appear so bleak that China and Russia would be sure to block action?

Gradually, it became clear that the U.S. was serious. Clinton spoke with her Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, who had previously told her that Russia would “never never” support even a no-fly zone. The Russians agreed to abstain. Without the cover of the Russians, the Chinese almost never veto Security Council resolutions.

With U.S. leadership, the UN Security Council’s passage of the Libya resolution was the first time in 60 years the UN authorized military action to prevent an “imminent massacre.” “It was, by any objective standard, the most rapid multinational military response to an impending human rights crisis in history,” said Tom Malinowski, the Washington director of Human Rights Watch.

And with the UN, the Arab League and NATO on board, the international community, not just the United States, is responsible for the outcome in Libya. That’s what Nelson Mandela called “leading from behind.” Perhaps for folks like Pawlenty, that just isn’t very satisfying.

Back in 2008, then presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) ran smear ads portraying fellow presidential contenders as soft on immigration. Yet, this past summer, Politico reported that Romney “signaled quietly to [Sen.] Graham that Republicans must address immigration before the campaign heats up.” Of course that didn’t happen and now that Romney is once again eying a presidential bid, he has to start figuring out what to say about immigration.

He could support immigration reform — but that would alienate the GOP Tea Party base. And if he goes the mudslinging route he pursued in 2008, it could cost Republicans the Latino vote and possibly the presidency. So, Romney has decided to play it safe by touting border security and opposing immigration reform on the grounds that he’d have to read a really long bill:

Well, I must admit, I’m kind of inclined to take problems sort of a bite at a time. And you know, if somebody wants do something comprehensively, why you can sit down and have that conversation. But you look at some of the legislation that’s passed over the past couple of years, and you’re talking about legislation of a couple thousand pages or more. I find that very difficult to deal with, both as a person who is supposed to read something like that and express an opinion on it or vote on it, but also as somebody who’s being regulated or being affected by the legislation.

Let’s look at things piece by piece. That’s the approach that I prefer, which would suggest let’s go after securing the border and making sure that those who come here legally are able to work here and those that come here illegally are no longer able to.

Watch it:

The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 was a little under 800 pages long to be precise. Admittedly, that’s not exactly bedside reading. But even President George W. Bush, who was always committed to setting aside time for leisure, was able to get around to understanding the main points of the bill.

Romney also indicated that “you’ve got to have a system for identifying who is here illegally and who’s not.” According to him, “Once we have a system like that in place, with an identification card for those who come legally, you can finally get tough on employers that hire illegals.” There actually is a system in place. It’s called a Social Security card. Romney may be advocating for some kind of biometric identification. If he is, it may not go over so well for him with the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party.

Romney has flip-flopped on immigration throughout his career, I wouldn’t be surprised if it happened again. As governor, he once stated that he favored a sensible path to citizenship. Then he “embraced a ship-them-back-home, tough- guy approach” even though he was okay with hiring undocumented Guatemalan workers to clean up his yard. Romney’s own family fled to Mexico for three generations.