In 1996 there was a high school government teacher, Victor Morales, in Texas who gained national attention with his shoestring campaign approach to gain votes for the U.S. Senate. His no frills appeal embraced the everyday people. He was encouraged by his students to run. They raised a small amount of money with bake sales and car washes to get Morales on the road. With the few dollars his students raised, and the money out of his own pocket, Morales bought bumper stickers, filled his white Nissan pickup truck with gas and hit the road.

The bumper stickers said: "Why not a teacher? Why not a guy without a million dollars?"

He refused campaign money from political action committees and used a grassroots approach by stopping in every small town in the state and talking to anyone who would listen. He hoped Texans would place a representative of the average American in Congress.

He became the darling of the media, even gained international attention with his old-fashioned American way of hitting the campaign trail. He showed the world the American process of gaining votes.

Did he win? No. Senator Phil Gramm (a long standing politician) with oil investments and ownership of various businesses, in addition to money from political action committees, beat Morales by a handful of votes.

It was a loss for Morales but a victory nevertheless because he was a long shot that turned into one of the most inspired political insurgencies in 50 years. Not only did thousands of Texans vote for him, but people who had never voted in their lives turned up at the polls. So Morales came out victorious. He not only became a hero, he and his little white pickup truck became a legend.

He had no television ads, no campaign office or staff, no website, none of the things that candidates spend huge fortunes on. The point of this story? He was a political marketing miracle.

It would be ridiculous in a presidential campaign for opponents to drive a pickup truck to every city and town in the country to win votes, so comparing Morales' campaign strategy to the current presidential race is like comparing apples to oranges.

Politics has adopted all the tools of modern merchandising - advertising, polling, brand positioning (Bush and Kerry are brands or products), telemarketing and demographic targeting.

Conventions, which once selected a party's candidate, are now part of the marketing plan. Deliberately drained of controversy, they aim to sharpen the campaign's message and to reward fundraisers and the party faithful. By one count, the Democratic convention had more than 200 parties, receptions, seminars and golf tournaments.

President Bush's campaign fortune continues to grow, hitting at least $218 million with two months of donations still to come. In 2000, his campaign cost roughly $105 million. So he's doubled the amount to spend on his campaign this election year.

John Kerry so far has raised $177 million, according to the Associated Press, and continues to raise $1 million a day. This is not counting what he plans to spend using his own resources or money contributed by his wealthy wife, Theresa Kerry, which is undisclosed.

It makes us wonder whether or not it's the man we are electing or an expensive marketing campaign. Perhaps the one with the slickest ads wins.

Is all this money on advertising necessary to win a campaign? Wouldn't that money be put to better use by donating it to the school programs or health care or the poor? Wouldn't that send a more effective message to voters rather than a slick marketing campaign? Or smear tactics from both candidates? If this were a perfect world perhaps - but since it isn't, the American public will continue to be bombarded by campaign ads, day after day until Super Tuesday in November. Hopefully we'll stay focused on the issues rather than on who looks best on television.