We are not voting in November for a commander in chief.

We are voting for a US president, the executive who administers the US executive branch of government. To understand the difference, perhaps some could go here, and read up on the Separation of Powers, which were created to prevent the majority from taking over the nation and ruling with an iron hammer fist.

Instead of concentrated power in one branch of the US government, the US political system is set up to ensure a state of Checks and Balances. Now, I know the current US moronic majority doesn't give a shit about the Separation of Powers and our system of Checks and Balances, but others of us in the minority, most certainly do.

The duties of the Executive Branch in the context of Checks and Balances:

Executive Branch

Checks on the Legislature
Veto power
Vice President is President of the Senate
Commander in chief of the military
Recess appointments
Emergency calling into session of one or both houses of Congress
May force adjournment when both houses cannot agree on adjournment
Compensation cannot be diminished
Checks on the Judiciary
Power to appoint judges
Pardon power
Checks on the Executive
Vice President and Cabinet can vote that the President is unable to discharge his duties

When the president suggests appointments to the federal bench, he is not acting as commander in chief.

The president does not have the constitutional power to levy taxes (that is the legislative branch).

Environmental standards suggested by the executive branch are not within the remit of the duties of commander in chief either.

So why, Van Lingle, are you insisting upon referring to the office of the president as if it's only duty is to act as commander in chief?

That is the tactic of the moronic Republican militarists. It is a tactic that is working very well to brainwash the American public into accepting the militarization of the presidency. The next step beyond is martial law, and a military dictatorship. A bloodless coup.