This is reductionist—foreign policy aimed at protecting every free country across the globe is a little trickier than that—and it’s a logical fallacy, but it’s not a comparison. The logical fallacy is that strength in one category can be transferred to another. (You may know its cousin: If we can put a man on the moon … )It’s also a familiar candidate gambit. Walker was arguing that since he had done one hard thing, he could offer the same internal strength to do another hard thing. This is what all candidates do when trying to argue that the skills they have in one context apply in the presidential context. It’s why Hillary Clinton thought she was better-prepared for a 3 a.m. phone call in the 2008 race, even though she’d never actually faced such a crisis. It’s why Barack Obama thought his successful campaign made him qualified to be a successful president, even though he’d never run anything.

Walker said he was taken out of context, and he was.

This is a particular gambit of governors who try to create future competency in foreign affairs based on accomplishments that don’t have anything to do with foreign affairs.