A couple of days ago, President Barack Obama put Scott Walker in check by suggesting that Walker needs to "bone up" on foreign affairs before shooting his mouth off.

Still stinging from this rebuke, Walker mewled back at Obama:

On Wednesday, Walker responded to the president by pointing to Ronald Reagan, the former president and governor of California, as evidence that governors could capably step from their roles as domestic leaders into the arena of international affairs.

"The best president in my lifetime when it comes to foreign affairs was a guy who was governor of California. Arguably one of the most challenged was a first-term senator from Illinois," Walker said, returning the president's jab. "So I think people, a lot of people agree with — including a good number of United States senators — agree with my sentiment about Iran."

So, what the hell does that mean? If Walker gets elected president, he's going to enter into illegal arms deals with Iran?

Anyway, Aaron David Miller, a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., thinks that Walker is getting a bit carried away with his Reagan fetish:

But Miller said that comparisons between Walker and Reagan break down both because of the differences between the two men and the world itself, which has changed radically between 1980 and 2015.

"There are very few Ronald Reagans," Miller said. "There's only one, actually."

In 1980, the United States faced its principal opposition from the Soviet Union and could bring its full resources as a superpower to bear on that challenge. Today, the nation is grappling with international terrorist groups that cross borders and evade easy targeting by the country's formidable military.

A presidential candidate now must grasp both the necessities and limits of American action, Miller said.

Miller isn't the only one that thinks Walker is a bit goofy with these self-comparisons to St. Ronnie.

With a hat tip to Jeff Simpson, we learn that Reagan biographer Lou Cannon is less than impressed with Walker's grandiose statements:

But the New York Times talked to at least one Reagan biographer who ain’t buying it. Lou Cannon told the Times that Walker’s continued comparisons of his policies to Reagan was based on a “caricature”:

Reality was more complicated, he said: As governor of California, Reagan signed tax increases and an abortion-rights bill. As president, he found common ground with the Soviet Union and did not relish firing the air traffic controllers, Mr. Cannon said.
“He never made his bones on trying to break the back of labor the way Walker has,” Mr. Cannon said. “Walker is borrowing from Reagan’s mystique more than any other Republican eyeing the presidency, but Ronald Reagan he ain’t.”

Ouch! That's going to leave a mark.

I would suggest that Walker set his aim on a more reasonable goal. Instead of being like Reagan, which he won't ever be able to do, he could try to be the next Bonzo.