Liberal columnist Dana Milibank of the Washington Post has routinely launched attacks against conservatives, especially the 2016 Presidential candidates.

In his latest op-ed, “Walker Falls Flat on His Face,” he takes aim at Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and New York City real estate mogul Donald Trump, claiming that the former is trying to trump The Donald:

Scott Walker has for two decades won primary elections by refusing to allow any Republican to outmaneuver him on the right. So when Donald Trump, father of the Central Park ice rink, began skating circles around the Republican presidential field with his perfect execution of hard-line conservative positions, the Wisconsin governor tried to keep up by attempting more daring ideological leaps.

For the record, Trump supports single-payer healthcare, and tap-danced around his answers to justify it in the past.

But in recent days, Walker has spun himself into a triple axel — and landed on his face.

First, asked by NBC’s Kasie Hunt whether he supported ending birthright citizenship — a constitutional principle in place since the Civil War era — Walker said: “I think that’s something we should, yeah, absolutely, going forward.”

Later, asked by CNBC’s John Harwood to clarify his position, Walker retreated. “I’m not taking a position on it one way or the other” until the border is secured, he said.

“Let’s focus on getting the border secured.” Every major GOP candidate embraces that position, even those who would implement amnesty or a pathway to citizenship afterwards.

Finally, on Sunday, Walker said without qualification that he would not seek to repeal the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to those born on American soil.

What did he say? Milibank did not quote the Presidential candidate’s comments this time.

The reversal, like Jeb Bush’s multiple positions on Iraq voiced in a single week this spring, produced much derision, but I have sympathy for Walker: The same would happen to anybody who tried to overtake Trump on the right.

Granted, Republicans must square their policy views (Walker has, as did Bush). So must all candidates, Republican or Democrat.

Attempting to out-conservative Trump is folly — even if the guy is a former liberal who nakedly reinvented himself for this campaign. Trump, if he is thinking about anything, is not thinking about preserving his electability should he somehow win the Republican nomination. He is taking the most conservative positions possible on a range of issues — and otherwise viable contenders are doing themselves damage by trying to match him.

Trump is not a “former” liberal, so long as he embraces single-payer or refuses to push it away.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal last week echoed Trump’s call for ending birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants, even though Jindal, born to legal immigrants, might be considered an “anchor baby” who benefited from birthright citizenship himself.

This is not true. Jindal’s parents were legal residents through Visas. The “anchor baby” issue touches on illegal aliens who have broken the law to bear their children in this country to gain American citizenship.

Nobody has been hurt by Trump more than Walker, who has seen his support drop nearly in half in the last month, to single digits. . . .That could explain the birthright-citizenship fiasco.

Milibank then attempts to diminish Walker as a weak flip-flopper a là Mitt Romney in a vain attempt to out-trump Trump:

He had, in 2013, supported a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, but he reversed himself earlier this year. Also in 2013, he said he had no interest in “right to work” legislation and called it a distraction, but earlier this year he signed such a bill.

These statements are patently untrue. Walker never fully endorsed a pathway position, but considered it reasonable in an off-hand comment during an interview on a wide range of issues. HE then clarified his remarks in favor of legal immigration. As for right-to-work legislation, all the Midwestern governors who signed off on Freedom to Work played coy for political purposes, in order to prevent labor unions from drafting onerous labor contracts delaying the full implementation of the reform.

In 2014, he ran an ad saying that while he’s pro-life, he supported legislation leaving the final decision on abortion to a “woman and her doctor.” Also in 2014, Walker said the issue of same-sex marriage wasn’t a priority for him and should be left to the courts. Now he backs a constitutional amendment giving the power to decide on gay marriage to the states.

Context is key, which means nothing to the Left in terms of disparaging candidates and distorting their remarks. His ad never claimed that any legislation would make an abortion such an arbitrary matter of choice. As he stated during his debate, he has been pro-life all of his life. In 2014, during his third run for governor in four years, Walker rebuffed gotcha questions about gay marriage by directing reporters to the state constitution, which voters had amended in 2006 to define marriage as between one man and one woman. When the Supreme Court declined the state’s appeal to protect the amendment, for that fight, Walker conceded that there was he nothing more he could do. . .as governor. As President, constitutional amendments are a readily available response for family and freedom advocates.

So ultimately it is WaPo’s Dana Milibank, not Scott Walker, who has skated around the truth and fallen flat on his face.