Will wrote last month about the oddity of some Senate Republicans trying to use the Elian Gonzales case against Attorney General (to be) Eric Holder. 

Will: 

Any time there’s a new administration riding into Washington, it seems like at least one appointee has to be the sacrificial lamb, having their nomination scuttled by something or other, usually something lacking any grand significance. Looks like this time it’s going to be Holder who gets either vigorously defended or thrown to the wolves, whichever the current script calls for.

While that should be enough sacrificial lamb with tangy retro rub to go around, some conservatives want to take us back to the year 2005, when Kelly Clarkson topped the charts and Justice Department nominee Thomas Perrelli represented Terry Schiavo’s right to die.

Oh, yes- they are going there:

But his high-profile role in the Schiavo case in 2005 stirred instant vitriol among pro-life and socially conservative activists who ordinarily focus their energies on judicial nominees.

Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, derided Mr. Perrelli’s selection as “just another death-peddler Obama has added to his list of nominees.” She said he’s earned the nickname among pro-lifers of “Piranha Perrelli” for his work on the case.

Tom McClusky, vice president for government affairs at the Family Research Council, said several end-of-life issues could make their way to the federal level in the next four years and having Mr. Perrelli at the department means pro-life causes would have a tougher time winning those debates.

“If the Justice Department isn’t going to do anything about it, the states, what’s to stop them from cases like Schiavo and even worse cases,” Mr. McClusky said.

The Schiavo case is still raw for many pro-life activists, though Miss Lafferty said some senators “are skittish about the whole thing.” 

Think Progress points out a few political flaws with the “use Schiavo against Perrelli” effort. From the bigger picture view, the American people weren’t supportive of the government interference in the Schiavo case when it was actually happening. It’s doubtful that in our current political climate- what with our economy collapsing faster than the ground behind Indiana Jones in a cave-it’s going to be a hot button issue for anyone.

As for the senators being “skittish”, it’s more that they realize this point isn’t going to be politically advantageous now as it was then. And, yes, Virginia- they only got involved then because of the political advantages:

From a GOP memo (bolding done by Think Progress):

“This is an important moral issue, and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue,” said the memo, reported by ABC News and later given to The Washington Post. “This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a co-sponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats.“