Former chairman of the Republican National Committee Michael Steele is joining the Lincoln Project, a group of Republicans working to prevent President Donald Trump's re-election. [More]

There's a shocker.

Because The Wayback Machine can be so slow in loading, I'm just gonna copy and paste that old article here. Note I'm not going to try to update internal links or futz with the formatting because I have new stuff to work on and just don't have the time:

The riddle of Steele

 

February 1, 10:45 AM

by David Codrea, Gun Rights Examiner

(AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

The GOP has spoken.

Michael Steele is the new party chairman.

What does this mean for gun owners?

Q: Should people have access to buy assault weapons?

A: Society should draw lines. What do you need an assault weapon for, if you're going hunting? That's overkill. But I don't think that means you go to a total ban for those who want to use gun for skeet shooting or hunting or things like that But what's the point of passing gun laws if we're not going to enforce them? If you want to talk about gun control, that's where you need to start. We've got 300 gun laws on the books right now. At the end of the day, it's about how we enforce the law.

It means once more the Republicans have abandoned their core constituency to chase after the false promise of moderation as the path to relevance. Say, how did that work out for John McCain and the rest of the party last November?

It won't work, of course. Even now, Democrat sympathizers are attacking Steele as a "dirty trickster." And "progressives" dismiss his appointment as cynical racial exploitation.

This is a familiar mantra. The point is, ceding to the left doesn't win you any friends among them--they just step up the attacks. And the Republicans seem bound and determined to drive away the friends it has always been able to count on in the hopes of appealing to a broader base.

Why would I support a broader base that wants to ban semi-autos? Why would I support a broader base that wants to enforce unconstitutional citizen disarmament edicts instead of repealing them?  Why would you?

Some of us could see this coming. Some of us wonder why so few voices in the gun rights community raised warning flags on Steele at the outset.

Some of us wonder why so few voices in the gun rights community urged gun owners to make their voices heard.

Some of us wonder why so few voices in the gun rights community pressed the candidates for an unequivocal statement of where they stand on the Second Amendment.

Some of us wonder why so few voices in the gun rights community demanded a direct answer on something so basic and essential.

Some of us wonder why so few voices in the gun rights community did not respond with outrage when the debate moderators lobbed a softball instead, to give the illusion of gun owner support without requiring the candidates to actually reveal their position on gun rights. That was the republican party disrespecting us, in case you were wondering.

Some of us wonder why, even now, so few voices in the gun rights community are decrying Steele's selection as yet another betrayal. Perhaps former Republican National Committee Chair, the late Lee Atwater, was right in the question attributed to him about taking gun owners for granted: Who else are they going to vote for?

Of course, some of us wonder why all those Republican senators voted to pass Eric Holder's nomination on to the Senate floor, why so many Republican senators enthusiastically support Holder, and why no Republican senators have even attempted to block the confirmation.

What some of us don't wonder, based on all of the above--is why gun owners are continually manipulated by the Republicans. It actually seems pretty obvious.

The riddle of Steele is no riddle at all.

[Via Steve T]