Has Scott Walker destroyed himself with three positions on birthright in one week?

If another day has passed, then Scott Walker must have a new position on birthright citizenship. A week ago, after Donald Trump came out against birthright citizenship, we found out Walker was against it too. Then we were told he was "tired" when he clearly said on video that he was against it, and actually his position on birthright citizenship was that he had no position (are you still following?). Then today we find out that Scott Walker does have a position, which is that he does not want to repeal birthright citizenship, and wants to continue letting anchor babies get citizenship for themselves and by chain migration, eventually their extended families.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker now says he doesn’t support repealing the birthright citizenship provision in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Nearly a week ago, Walker said he wants to end birthright citizenship, and he would not say then whether he agrees with the 14th Amendment.

"This Week" host George Stephanopoulos repeatedly asked Walker about birthright citizenship, eventually asking: "You're not seeking to repeal or alter the 14th Amendment?"

"No," Walker said. "My point is any discussion that goes beyond securing the border and enforcing laws are things that should be a red flag to voters out there who for years have heard lip service from politicians and are understandably angry."

Ending chain migration is a "red flag"? It's a legimitate concern. Who thinks this way?

Walker said Monday that he supports ending birthright citizenship, then said later in the day that the problem could be addressed by enforcing other laws. On Tuesday, a prominent donor confronted Walker on the topic and walked away satisfied that the candidate wouldn't do away with birthright citizenship. On Friday, Walker said he didn't have a position on the issue. Then Sunday, Walker said he does not want to alter the 14th Amendment.

Stanley S. Hubbard, a conservative billionaire who oversees a Minnesota broadcasting company and has donated to Walker’s campaign, confronted Walker on the issue during a lunch in Minnesota on Tuesday. Hubbard strongly opposes ending birthright citizenship, and he told The Washington Post that he “might really quickly change my allegiance” if Walker pushed for such a repeal. Hubbard said he “did not get a real straight answer” from the candidate — but he came away ready to write more checks to help Walker, added: “I got the feeling that he is not at all anxious to talk about taking away those rights.”

How disappointing is this? When a candidate changes position three times in a week on such an important issue, what are voters to think? When a candidate calls ending birthright citizenship a "red flag," it gives the impression he's more in touch with billionaire crony capitalists than voters.

How disappointing, considering what a promising leader he seemed to be! A great reformer from liberal Wisconsin, who took on the unions and won, survived a recall election, and made conservatism politically acceptable once again in the Midwest. But his latest back and forths raise real questions about him.

I was one of the first bloggers to write about the inconsistencies of Scott Walker. I wrote how Walker, after many years of being pro-amnesty, became anti-amnesty right before running for President, but still told donors in private meetings that he was pro-amnesty. I wrote about his flipflop on gays in the Boy Scouts, his flipflops on ethanol and right-to-work legislation, and his middling at best budget record.

As for me, I'll continue to criticize anyone, even Ted Cruz, when they stray from principle, honesty, or common sense.

This article was produced by NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.

If another day has passed, then Scott Walker must have a new position on birthright citizenship. A week ago, after Donald Trump came out against birthright citizenship, we found out Walker was against it too. Then we were told he was "tired" when he clearly said on video that he was against it, and actually his position on birthright citizenship was that he had no position (are you still following?). Then today we find out that Scott Walker does have a position, which is that he does not want to repeal birthright citizenship, and wants to continue letting anchor babies get citizenship for themselves and by chain migration, eventually their extended families.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker now says he doesn’t support repealing the birthright citizenship provision in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Nearly a week ago, Walker said he wants to end birthright citizenship, and he would not say then whether he agrees with the 14th Amendment.

"This Week" host George Stephanopoulos repeatedly asked Walker about birthright citizenship, eventually asking: "You're not seeking to repeal or alter the 14th Amendment?"

"No," Walker said. "My point is any discussion that goes beyond securing the border and enforcing laws are things that should be a red flag to voters out there who for years have heard lip service from politicians and are understandably angry."

Ending chain migration is a "red flag"? It's a legimitate concern. Who thinks this way?

Walker said Monday that he supports ending birthright citizenship, then said later in the day that the problem could be addressed by enforcing other laws. On Tuesday, a prominent donor confronted Walker on the topic and walked away satisfied that the candidate wouldn't do away with birthright citizenship. On Friday, Walker said he didn't have a position on the issue. Then Sunday, Walker said he does not want to alter the 14th Amendment.

Stanley S. Hubbard, a conservative billionaire who oversees a Minnesota broadcasting company and has donated to Walker’s campaign, confronted Walker on the issue during a lunch in Minnesota on Tuesday. Hubbard strongly opposes ending birthright citizenship, and he told The Washington Post that he “might really quickly change my allegiance” if Walker pushed for such a repeal. Hubbard said he “did not get a real straight answer” from the candidate — but he came away ready to write more checks to help Walker, added: “I got the feeling that he is not at all anxious to talk about taking away those rights.”

How disappointing is this? When a candidate changes position three times in a week on such an important issue, what are voters to think? When a candidate calls ending birthright citizenship a "red flag," it gives the impression he's more in touch with billionaire crony capitalists than voters.

How disappointing, considering what a promising leader he seemed to be! A great reformer from liberal Wisconsin, who took on the unions and won, survived a recall election, and made conservatism politically acceptable once again in the Midwest. But his latest back and forths raise real questions about him.

I was one of the first bloggers to write about the inconsistencies of Scott Walker. I wrote how Walker, after many years of being pro-amnesty, became anti-amnesty right before running for President, but still told donors in private meetings that he was pro-amnesty. I wrote about his flipflop on gays in the Boy Scouts, his flipflops on ethanol and right-to-work legislation, and his middling at best budget record.

As for me, I'll continue to criticize anyone, even Ted Cruz, when they stray from principle, honesty, or common sense.

This article was produced by NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.