Though many Americans have said they would support retired General Colin Powell's if he ran for president, I'd like to suggest a campaign to draft another military hero. Though he has expressed no interest in the job, consider this a nomination for Cap'n Crunch as the Republican candidate for the White House in 2000.

Though only a fictional character, Crunch has repeatedly protected America from the dreaded Soggies using little more than an old pirate ship and a snazzy looking captain's outfit. Taking little credit for himself, the good Cap'n has constantly served the public, both as a military hero and as the inventor of "crunch berries."

While Cap'n Crunch might not make a good "leader of the free world," he does possess many of the attributes necessary for today's national political candidate. By never taking a stand on any issue other than cereal sogginess, Crunch remains ideally positioned to side with whatever group offers him the most money. Couple that with his distinguished military record and his high name recognition, and most people would vote Crunch without knowing where he stands on anything.

Instead of carefully examining a candidate's record, the American voter casts ballots based on hot button issues, political affiliations and physical appearance. While no one will directly say, "He'll ruin our country with his ideas, but my, he's handsome," we often vote that way.

Candidates with good hair always beat bald candidates, and I'm sure Vegas puts its money on the skinny guy if he's facing off with someone a bit on the portly side. Applying these standards to history, Franklin D. Roosevelt would lose an election to Frank Sinatra, while Abe Lincoln would still be living in his log cabin.

Our campaigns to draft Powell and other media darling military leaders into elected office are worse than voting for someone based solely on his attractiveness. Though we've romanticized these men, they've never shown us anything beyond a skill at conducting military operations, a valuable skill for a president, but certainly not the only necessary one. And instead of wanting to delve into their abilities, we readily accept them as political leaders after learning their party identification, stand on abortion and whether they've ever employed an off-the-books nanny.

Captain Kangaroo has shown an ability to lead children, and Colonel Sanders knows the secret herbs and spices that can make anything "finger-lickin' good," but as voters, we realize that these two great men need more before we push them into the oval office. I'm sure even The Captain might captivate voters if he could ever erase the image of Tenille as the one actually calling the shots.

But we don't vote for these people--even if their love can keep us together--because they're creations of the media. While Powell and his ilk have the advantage of being real, what we know about them is as manipulated as what we know about our pseudo-military entertainers and product spokespeople.

The average American has become so disenchanted with the political process that he no longer sees the effect his vote could have on his life and will happily fall in line behind the person with the best commercial and the highest Q rating. We don't know anything for ourselves, but the commercials tell us what to think, and why would a candidate's political opponents want you to believe lies about him?

So before we vote for General Mills International Coffee as our delegate to the United Nations, I suggest we consider the issues and actually vote for people we agree with. Ignore the parties, the posturing and most certainly the television commercials, and actually consider whether Candidate A will make your life better than will Candidate B. And if they'll both drag us down, well then let's do a better job of finding Candidate C.