Or call it "inveterate."
It's a good word, a really accurate label, because, more often that not, Walker cannot give a reliably factual account of facts, polices and issues - - even about events in which he is the subject but others observed and reported differently, data show.
I'd noted last Friday that Scott Walker had last week claimed to have voted for his political idol Ronald Reagan, but Walker achieved the legal voting age of 18 a year after Reagan's second election in 1984; casting a ballot for The Gipper would have been impossible and illegal - - Voter Fraud 101 if he really did it.
And there is a demonstrable pattern to Walker's false speaking. After reviewing 85 of Walker's statements, PolitiFact has awarded them ratings more often in its "false" categories than "true."
In fact, only nine of those 85 Walker statements are rated "True" without qualification, while 25 are fated "False" without qualification.
And another seven get the worst rating of all: "Pants on Fire," bringing "false" and 'Liar,'Liar...' to 32 and a troubling false-to-true ratio of more than 3.5:1
Now I know that political-speak is full of exaggeration. "My esteemed colleague from the Great State of..." can also mean, "That thieving adulterer from the hick state next door..."
And "This bill is the worst piece of legislation in history" really means, "Our party has a different approach."
But how can Walker get things so wrong, and is there anyone around him who knows differently or cares enough to prepare Walker before he starts talking? Consider, for example:
A 10-year state program that created 202 jobs at a cost of $247,000 per job was approved by former Gov. Jim Doyle.
Or, why would Walker repeat claims in his book that were already labeled "false" by PolitFact, giving PolitiFact another opportunity to note them, in this fashion, for readers as well as other reporters building their Walker-for-President 2016 files:
Collective bargaining and unions
The most controversial legislation during Walker’s tenure has been Act 10, which took healthcare and pensions out of collective bargaining for most public employees. That allowed local governments and schools to impose cost-sharing for those benefits instead of negotiating with labor leaders.
Claim: "Without our reforms, property taxes would have risen by an average of $700 over the course of the biennium for the average taxpayer. Instead, thanks to Act 10, they declined on a median-valued home."
In July 2011, we rated False an abbreviated version of this claim when Walker said that "under our budget, the average property taxpayer will save $700." The figure was based on a flawed hypothetical scenario. The second part of the book’s claim, about taxes falling on a median home, is accurate. They went down $20 over Walker’s first two years.
Walker made a similar claim in October 2013, saying that a property tax relief bill meant taxpayers would save $680 over four years. We rated that Pants on Fire because the bill had nowhere near that impact and Walker used a hypothetical scenario to get his number while portraying it as real cash savings.
Walker had a book co-author, and, presumably publishing house fact-checkers, to get such blatant misstatements and data errors out of the text.
A helpful Google is there for free to anyone in Walker's orbit with a smart phone. Editing is as easy as backspace, delete.
And Walker continues to have a personal staff, a campaign staff and an administration of appointees and civil servants to check facts before statements are made - - if the boss were to make it a priority.
Which is part of his job, since the buck stops with him and, as Governor, he sets the moral, leadership tone for the state.
Walker's official biography underscores right at the top that he is a pastor's son and an Eagle Scout - - Scott Walker grew up in a small Wisconsin town called Delavan. The son of a pastor, Scott had the spirit of service instilled in him at an early age. He was involved in sports, band, church, and achieved the rank of Eagle Scout - - but where in his statements as a Governor and candidate, that are so easy to evaluate is the follow-through?