The administration would get blamed anyway by virtue of being in charge. They've been willing to announce stopping the use of torture (with many in their opposition howling that this will cost American lives), so it's clearly not impossible for them to change policy just because security is the claimed justification for it.
Nobody cares about what the TSA itself supports. The TSA does what it's told to do. The idea is to get enough people annoyed about what the FAA has the TSA do to encourage change in policy. This may or may not be doable, but that's politics for you.
EDIT: emphasis added for the benefit of some poor readers.
Good grief.
3 people were waterboarded. The former administration refused to rule in or out any sort of interrogation technique.
They hardly "stopped the use of torture". Made a political statement, sure. Announced what the limits were, sure. But they didn't stop anything of the sort.
At the same time, reasonable people need to speak up about and work on important issues, because it affects the opportunity cost of those in power. If there is zero (perceived) opposition, it becomes cheaper to create more restrictions.
But can I just suggest that this problem is completely intractable? Given the fact that we've accepted the costs of not having cellphones on planes, or listening to our iPods when the plane is landing, or bringing 6 ounces of fluid onto a flight --- given the fact that society and the economy is still functioning given these meaningless and onerous restrictions --- there is simply nothing in it for the government to removing the restrictions.
As an example of what I was trying to express, in the last German national election, 2% of Germans voted for the Pirate Party, which was running essentially as an interest group for personal freedom and privacy.
The previous grand coalition government had used the specter of child pornography to legislate secret Australia-style black-lists. People stood up by signing a petition against this and risked being labeled "pro-child porn".
The newly formed (more liberal) coalition abandoned this project during their negotiations, with the Chancelor expressly pointing out the surprising 2% success of the Pirate Party.
This is a case where stupidity was being undone, because of civic engagement.
As I said, pick your battles and don't become a cynic. (Not trying to imply you are, just generally speaking). Cheers. :)
Side note: I appreciate a good rant once in a while, so I don't take any issue with your original post.