Property rights, conservative bloggers and W

A lot of conservative bloggers whipped themselves into a lather over yesterday's Supreme Court decision upholding the right of government to seize private property to make way for shopping malls, office parks or any other development project that strikes the fancy of an ambitious city planner.

Naturally, much of the rhetoric was overheated. Shot in the Dark's Mitch Berg shrieked that the court's "five liberal members gang raped property rights" and than blathered on with a reference about "the Ba'athists here at home we have to mop up." Powerline's Scott Johnson, striking a somewhat more restrained tone, complained about the court's "accommodation of governmental power over individual rights." Meanwhile, his colleague John Hinderaker was moved to harrumph: "I don't see how the ideological lineup could be clearer. If you care about property rights, vote for conservatives."

Strangely enough, I found myself in agreement with many of the sentiments expressed by these tiresome gasbags. Kelo v New London is an outrageous decision. It will enrich big corporations, powerul developers and real estate interests; it will result in little people getting screwed out of their homes. In other words, it a decision that ensures more business-as-usual.

But I do wish someone on the right would own up to their favorite president's sordid history in regards to exactly this practice. Bush made the bulk of his personal future (as general partner with Texas Rangers) thanks to an eminent domain land grab and massive public subsidy that was used to build the Ballpark at Arlington.

So my question to the starboard bloggers: Where's the outrage?