So.... being as DHS/TSA is under the control of the executive... and since the newsies are more than happy to broadcast live from airports to show long lines at the security checkpoints... which apparently makes Ma & Pa Kettle feel safer....

What do you think are the odds of some sort of security flap and ensuing TSA crackdown before the election? I'm thinking Friday would be a good time for it -- it can be on the news all weekend, but it doesn't allow enough time for sanity to resume before the polls close.

Since this is an ordinary work week, I am outbound early and returning Friday. I think I'll just plan on allowing a LOT of time Friday morning, and wearing comfortable shoes.

Well, comfortable shoes are always a good thing; more so when traveling.

I prefer not to attribute to malice that which can more readily be attributed to incompetence.

The TSA has been one of many issues which has caused otherwise conservative people to turn from the President. The water ban and baggies were the last straw. They see it as theater and not a pleasant one at that.

Shoes they could understand. But water and shampoo?

The majority of people who fly not at all or once a year believe we are all safer. The ones who vote will make their choice. As hard as it is for us to believe frequent fliers are in the minority.

Our Wendy who has not flown once in nearly 40 years, thinks all this new stuff is just wonderful and will tell that to anyone who will listen to her without telling them that she doesn't travel by air. In her job she talks to people all day long, so her opinion is being heard far more than mine.

So true.

Ditto for my mother in law who hasn't flown since Clinton was in office.

No matter who wins, I don't think the TSA circus will improve. As long as people (like the ones mentioned in previous posts) believe we are safer as a result, the status quo will remain the same.

For an example of this, why aren't Senator Kennedy and Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez fighting to scrap the unAmerican flying blacklists when they have been personally subjected to it and know consituents are hassled routinely by them? Instead of dealing with the fundamental flaws of this blacklisting, they focus on doing piecemeal clean-up as a personal/constituent service for an individual rather than addressing the flawed systems themselves.

They don't even run their mouths on the issue. Why not? Words aren't expensive, and speaking up is the least they can do. Being in the minority is no excuse for remaining silent on these issues, for ignoring the fundamental flaws of this regime.

No U.S. politician wants to criticize TSA/DHS, thereby allowing an opponent to claim weakness on security and terrorism. Kennedy and Sanchez fit this pattern. They do not care about the blacklists on a conceptual basis, as long as they are not subject to the blacklists. Again, no politician can afford to be tarred as weak on security, even if the politician tries to point out the inadequacies of the current mess.

Oh, but some can afford to stand up for and do the right thing, even when it's unpopular, even where their opponents will try to tar them as weak on security. I salute the example of Sen. Feingold, a politician who opposed the USA PATRIOT Act and voted against it in October 2001. That time people said his career was over; and most of his staff and supporters thought he had committed political suicide. Yet he won re-election in 2004.

The lesson: an unpopular vote of conscience is not always a career-ending move, especially if it's understood to be a vote of conscience. Also, it's a bit harder to try to tar and feather someone with the "weak" label & image when that someone is willing to sacrifice their career and stand up against the majority for what they truly believe when so few others are.