Radio talk show host Charlie Sykes was born in Seattle and moved to New York State when he was 3 years old. He didn't get to Wisconsin until third grade, in 1963, when he landed in Fox Point, eventually attending Nicolet High School and then UW-Milwaukee.

After graduation in 1975, the English Literature major ("the most un-sellable major," Sykes says), got his first job working for the weekly newspaper chain, The Post, here in Milwaukee. Within a year, he moved to the old Milwaukee Journal where he started out covering what he calls "suburbanite stuff." Sykes did that for about a year before becoming a City Hall reporter covering Mayor Henry Maier.

In addition to his "Mid-Day with Charles Sykes" radio show on 620 WTMJ-AM, Sykes has authored several books, writes a syndicated column and hosts the television show "Sunday Insight With Charles Sykes" on WTMJ-TV.

Chances are that you have an opinion about Charlie Sykes. Even if you don't listen to his radio show, you most likely find him entertaining, informative or annoying. And he has a ton of his own to share with you in this edition of OMC's "Milwaukee Talks."

OMC: Did you know what you wanted to do when you were in high school?

Charlie Sykes: No, I didn't. Actually, I didn't think about media (as a career). For a while I figured I'd do something in politics or government, and then later, when I was in college, I thought maybe I would go into academia. Life is a series of fortunate accidents and surprises.

I worked at the Journal from '76 to '82. Then I went to Milwaukee Magazine. I became the editor and worked there through '87 when Harry Quadracci and I had a brief disagreement which resulted in me moving on. I was fired with great enthusiasm.

OMC: That's a beautiful phrase.

CS: Actually, I stole it from somebody, but I said when (former Milwaukee County Executive) Dave Schulz hired me that I was entering my new job the same way I left my old one; fired with great enthusiasm. So, I left the magazine in '87 abruptly and spent the next year or so writing my first book, "Prof Scan." And then as I was wrapping that up I went to work for Schulz. Dave was a character. Dave was a lot of fun.

(The job with) Dave was a great education. It was wonderful for me to have a chance to see county government from inside. I wouldn't say I was the most successful bureaucrat in the history of county government but it was a real education to be able to see what actually was important to people in government and so I enjoyed that thoroughly. It was an adventure; it was a lot of fun.

OMC: How do you think the County Executive's job has changed since Schulz left?

CS: Well, everything changed in 2002. In some ways Dave was kind of a blip because county government was this very incestuous, self-involved organization that was really concerned with protecting the insiders.

One of the lessons I learned was (that) in county government about 80 percent of the attention of the energy was spent on just internal ring kissing, ego massage and taking care of one another. And about 20 percent was actually concerned with anything remotely involving serving the public or public policy.

And Dave interrupted the normal line of succession -- the insider game -- and as soon as he was gone it reverted to form. County Executive Tom Ament was really the direct line of that, and I think what happened was the incestuous culture of county government just caught up with itself, and you had the taxpayer revolt.

I'm not sure that anything will be quite the same again. Although what happened was that before Schulz, nobody paid any attention to county government. After Schulz, nobody paid any attention to county government and this is one of my themes on the program -- you've got to watch these guys all the time. If you don't watch them then they will grab everything they can, including the dishtowels, which was pretty much the story of the Ament administration.

OMC: Sitting where you are today, who do you think would have a better chance of beating Governor Jim Doyle, State Rep. Mark Green or Scott Walker?

CS: I don't know, it's too early to tell. It really is. You have two incredibly strong candidates. They have the political smarts, they have the policy smarts, they have the personality, they have different bases. This is one of the things you get over the course of a primary -- is you get to see who in fact is a good statewide candidate. I've learned never to underestimate Scott Walker. Scott is one of the truly gifted politicians, and I've made no secret of the fact I feel that way. But I also think that Mark Green is very, very gifted -- it's too bad they have to run against one another. So, I honestly don't know.

OMC: If you had to grade Mayor Barrett so far in his term, what would it be and why?

CS: I'd probably give him a tardy for being so slow to show up. I like Tom Barrett, I think he's got the potential to be a very good mayor. I think he has the potential to have a lot of really good things happen on his watch but his first year's been a little tentative.

I joke with him that you have to look for him on the milk carton because he's been so absent. I think he's been reluctant to make some tough choices, and as a result it's kind of hard to give him anything other than an incomplete.

But he still has a chance, but I think he's been reluctant to pull the trigger. He was reluctant to pull the trigger on (Lisa) Artison (former executive director of the Milwaukee Election Commission who resigned March 1, 2005). He seems addicted to appointing committees and task forces, and he seems to not have really figured out what issues he really wants to lead on. What is his thing? What really matters to him? Part of his problem is that guys like Henry Maier and John Norquist -- their whole lives they wanted to be mayor of the city and they thought about urban issues all the time and they had a philosophy; sometimes right headed and sometimes wrong headed but they really -- these were urban guys. Tom Barrett, I think, backed into being mayor. He ran for governor, lost, didn't want to be a practicing lawyer and this was open. Now, he can grow into the job.

OMC: What qualifies you to be a talk show host?

CS: What gives anybody the right to be a talk show host? Really, I have a lot of opinions and the willingness to express them. Beyond that, I don't claim that there are any special qualifications. The fact is I have been in Milwaukee journalism since the mid-1970s. So in terms of journalistic experience, I suppose I could stack that up against a lot of folks in both newspaper, magazine, TV and radio, but ultimately what is a talk show all about? It's about somebody willing to run his mouth. And I've been willing to do that.

OMC: Does it wear on you when people have certain opinions of you as a talk show host because of what they hear and what the national media's saying but yet they don't know you as a person? How do you deal with that?

CS: At one point it might have, but I think this is one of the qualifications to be a talk show host, that you need to have thick skin and you need to not be afraid of being controversial.

So, frankly, I think it goes with the territory. And I know that there are people who have strong feelings on both sides and that's just part of the job description. I will tell you the story though. When I first started doing this, we live in an age where anyone who wants to communicate with you can do it instantaneously through e-mail and a variety of other ways, they don't have to sit down and write a letter. I remember Jim Iriwin, the voice of the Packers, got a letter that was critical of something he'd done on a play-by-play and he obsessed about it all morning -- he obsessed about this person criticizing him. Jim would get maybe one a month and he would really ruin his whole day. I said, Jim, I get 10 of those a day! I'll be glad to exchange my hate mail for your hate mail. After awhile you just learn to deal with it.