I would be interested in finding that out as well. As I have noted in the past, there are two types of party switchers. Those who do so for ideological reasons because they no longer feel comfortable with the RAT party platform (Reagan types) and those who do so for political strategic reasons because they need to have an "R" next to their name to get on the ballot in November (Bloomberg types). Of course some candidates may have a combination of reasons but what was the primary factor?
I find it interesting how I've seen legions of freepers sound the "RINO!!!!" alarm at guys like Norm Coleman and Trey Grayson because they "used to be a Democrat" over a decade ago, but when guys like Louisiana State Treasurer John N. Kennedy and Philadephia Schools CEO Paul Vallas have been loyal, comfortable liberal Democrats for decades and decided to toss an "R" next to their name only a few months before a recent election, many conservatives told us there was nothing of concern about that, move along and get behind them. Hmmm.
One of the favorites of conservatives (at least online conservatives ala Ron Paul) here in Illinois is Adam Andrejewski. I'm told by numerous conservatives that supposedly he's the "most conservative" and the "best choice" for Governor. But "true conservative" Adam was raised in a Democrat family and I'm pretty sure he personally didn't become a Republican until the 1980s. I'd love to get more details on that, because I'm not buying the idea his dad was a "conservative Democrat" running against a "RINO" in 1978. All the evidence from that time period shows otherwise.
Bottom line is what motivated Grayson to switch parties in '92? It's possible he did it in order to ensure he'd "win", but unlikely since KY Democrats tended to fare much better than KY Republicans in statewide bids at that time. What was the reason?
And I'd very interested in getting some actual detailed policy positions from the two candidates about where they stand on tough issues. For example, let's start with the U.S. Senate candidates from Kentucky telling us exactly how they feel about Obama moving Gitmo terrorists to a regular Chicago prison, if and why and they agree with it, if and why they don't, and what they alternates they would suggest.
In the caes of John N. Kennedy, he was accepted because he was the only alternative to Landrieu. Had Kennedy been elected in 2008 — he just couldn’t convince voters about Landrieu — the health-care bill would be one-vote short of cloture.
I know nothing about Grayson but am surprised to see that he is such a recent liberal Democrat, apparently more liberal than Kennedy, but maybe not.
According to Grayson: “Some people in college tried pot. I tried Clinton’”
So his version of the story is apparently that he was young and dumb.
The biggest indication that would speak against him being a huge RINO is his alleged status as Bunning’s protege.
I’m not sure what year it was he switched. But whether it was 1993 or 1997 at the time Bill Clinton had carried the state and the rats dominated state-level politics.
So I doubt very much he switched cause he thought the rat party was dead in Kentucky. It is still unfortunately alive and well.
That doesn’t mean his not a “climate change” fool like many lifelong Republicans are.