This is from the AOPA website, so it's focused on general aviation. Nevertheless, most of the points are a good indication of where the candidates stand on aviation security overall.

http://www.aopa.org/feature/election08/q8.html

From the article:

If he would actually do this instead of pay lip service to this, I would be most grateful.

At least it's better than Bush's (paraphrase) "the Constitution is just a [expletive] piece of paper."

yes, but there was also this:

That gets a in my book as it means that they will continue to run amok, contrary to real risk management.

I hold out no hope that either of these two candidates will really do much to address my criticisms of DHS and the TSA. I do have expectations that one is more likely -- and the other less likely -- to select future Supreme Court Justices that are more likely to protect my civil liberties as it relates to travel. I just don't want to see more Roberts, Alitos, or Thomases on the Supreme Court.

Wow. That was helpful. One who blathers on about securing the Fatherland nation while one says hardly anything.

In other words: status quo from whichever clown gets elected.

Yup. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in for an unfortunate surprise.

While not a private pilot, I find General Aviation and Airport Watch an intelligent alternative to TSA. I've been flown into and out of Air Force bases with less fuss than the commercial flights that I have taken since 9/11. Westover to Stewart AFB in a Mooney to rescue my working English Cocker Spaniel Tuxedo is a case in point. Free coffee, no security paranoia BS- really refreshing...

Typical politician non-answer answers, no big surprise.

Can�t risk offending the Air Transport Association!

I challenged the Obama campaign on their wishy-washy aviation security platform and stance on the TSA. All I got from them was a canned marketing response and endless spam emails.

Bob Barr to the rescue!!

Dear GOD, if he only had a CHANCE in today's modern political arena... FAR too many people buy into the whole "A third-party candidate can NEVER get elected to major public office, so it's a waste of your vote to vote for one!" line the Big Two and the mass-media keep spinning. As a result of 90+% buy-in to that (and exclusion from public media events the Big Two get to attend as a matter of course, not to mention exclusion from automatic ballot access without expensive signature drives the Big Two don't need, or from public Federal election funds the Big Two can draw on... no, there's not a stacked deck or anything), we keep getting the same old thing. Big surprise there...

So naturally TSA and DHS will carry on business in the same old way - who's going to change it?

Still going to vote for Barr, personally - principles mean something to me, so I just can't bring myself to vote for "the lesser of two evils".

WE will. Not overnight. Not quickly, either. But one rule at a time. One sentence at a time. One bill at a time.

We will hand them a platter of small defeats, which can wear them down over time and take away their expectation of carte blanche rubber stamping.

I'd go for Barr if but for my concern that I can't take a risk of allowing one of the major two party candidates to win and appoint more Supreme Court Justices who don't believe in the right to privacy. Someone who would vote for Alito and Roberts and once said he would consider appointing Chertoff and Mukasey to the Supreme Court just scares me. I don't have the luxury of ideological rigidity to allow for that to happen.