When I first started taking an interest in American politics my husband warned me about Pat Buchanan (and a few others often seen on TV shows offering political commentary). He is apparently well known for his conservative/Republican stances, all more or less opposite to my own.
It's been very strange lately to find that Pat Buchanan is one of very few voices I can listen to without wanting to hurl something at the TV screen. Perhaps he's pandering to the anti-Obama people in the audience, and in his own party by putting forward reasonable and fair opinions about Hillary Clinton, against the avidly pro-Obama mob on MSNBC. Some say that he's likely to turn smartly against Hillary Clinton, should she manage to achieve the Democratic nomination.
I prefer to think though (Pollyanna-ish) that he truly understands Clinton and her approach, even though he disagrees with her policies. The two work from a basically similar astrological base. Both have Sun in Scorpio, Mercury in Scorpio, Moon in Pisces (if times of birth are correct).
Buchanan was born on 2 November 1938 in Washington DC according to Wikipedia, but according to Astrotheme in Mount Vernon, New York. Astrotheme has his time of birth as 12.20 am. That time puts Moon just into Pisces, at 00 degrees, even if it's not correct, but later Moon would still lie in Pisces. Both have the same nodal axis, Taurus/Scorpio, but in reverse. Buchanan's South node is Taurus, which is Clinton's North node. I don't go along with some interpretations of the N. and S. Moon's nodes, but prefer to see them as just two more very sensitive points in any natal chart, bringing extra emphasis to transits or conjoined natal planets. Buchanan's ascendant is 22 Leo, and Clinton has Saturn at 21 Leo, close to midheaven, so there's emphasis there on the same Leo degree.
So, though cynics might say Pat Buchanan is being somewhat hypocritical, ready to turn immediately if Hillary Clinton were to be the Democratic nominee, I prefer to believe that he understands her better than the rest of 'em, feels empathy, is sincere and willing to give her a fair shot at the prize for which she's aiming.
Pat was in good form last night during post-primary discussions. Hillary Clinton's big 41 point victory didn't protect her from many snide remarks from the usual suspects insisting that "it doesn't change anything - it's the math". Pat stood firmly in her corner. He admits, however, that for her to win the nomination, as the math stands now would be very difficult - something unexpected has to happen. With Uranus in the picture, I'd say it's practically a certainty that something will.
PS: My tarot cards did behave themselves.(See Monday's blog)
It's been very strange lately to find that Pat Buchanan is one of very few voices I can listen to without wanting to hurl something at the TV screen. Perhaps he's pandering to the anti-Obama people in the audience, and in his own party by putting forward reasonable and fair opinions about Hillary Clinton, against the avidly pro-Obama mob on MSNBC. Some say that he's likely to turn smartly against Hillary Clinton, should she manage to achieve the Democratic nomination.
I prefer to think though (Pollyanna-ish) that he truly understands Clinton and her approach, even though he disagrees with her policies. The two work from a basically similar astrological base. Both have Sun in Scorpio, Mercury in Scorpio, Moon in Pisces (if times of birth are correct).
Buchanan was born on 2 November 1938 in Washington DC according to Wikipedia, but according to Astrotheme in Mount Vernon, New York. Astrotheme has his time of birth as 12.20 am. That time puts Moon just into Pisces, at 00 degrees, even if it's not correct, but later Moon would still lie in Pisces. Both have the same nodal axis, Taurus/Scorpio, but in reverse. Buchanan's South node is Taurus, which is Clinton's North node. I don't go along with some interpretations of the N. and S. Moon's nodes, but prefer to see them as just two more very sensitive points in any natal chart, bringing extra emphasis to transits or conjoined natal planets. Buchanan's ascendant is 22 Leo, and Clinton has Saturn at 21 Leo, close to midheaven, so there's emphasis there on the same Leo degree.
So, though cynics might say Pat Buchanan is being somewhat hypocritical, ready to turn immediately if Hillary Clinton were to be the Democratic nominee, I prefer to believe that he understands her better than the rest of 'em, feels empathy, is sincere and willing to give her a fair shot at the prize for which she's aiming.
Pat was in good form last night during post-primary discussions. Hillary Clinton's big 41 point victory didn't protect her from many snide remarks from the usual suspects insisting that "it doesn't change anything - it's the math". Pat stood firmly in her corner. He admits, however, that for her to win the nomination, as the math stands now would be very difficult - something unexpected has to happen. With Uranus in the picture, I'd say it's practically a certainty that something will.
PS: My tarot cards did behave themselves.(See Monday's blog)
10 comments:
Pat has also stood behind Obama's approach during the Rev. Wright flaps.
Pat's mellowed so much since the days he was running for president. He almost seems to have accepted the crazy notion that finding common ground is more productive than standing on opposite sides of the fence screaming at each other!
Oh, did he? I can't bear to watch MSNBC for long, except on election nights, so haven't seen all his contributions. Whenever I've listened to him he is unfailingly fair, reasonable and evenhanded in his comments. Most of what he says is plain common sense (to me anyway!)
Maybe it's the wisdom of age, TNPOTUS.
I shall watch with interest the progress of your Gemini Party, by the way. It's about time we could wring a laugh out of these sorry proceedings. ;-)
Ah, you should have been around back in The Day - The Day of Pat Buchanan, chief speech writer for Richard Nixon, who was a stringent "law-and-order" guy who wanted all those long-haired hippie freaks burned in the streets or sent off to Vietnam. (Even though Pat never served in the military himself.)
Or those wonderful The Days when he went from being kinda of a Goldwater libertarian-style Conservative to a Social Conservative blaming all liberals for the moral decline of America.
Or the other The Days of "Crossfire," when he screamed and yelled and made all sorts of asinine pronouncements about limp-wristed, abortion-lovin', homo-enamored, tree-huggin', intellectually-retarded liberal thinkers.
Oh, it was such a different Pat back then!
I also think Pat, correct me if I'm wrong T, was/is anti-feminist and fundie Christian, so this new softer Pat is a bit of a revelation.
I keep waiting for the real Pat to emerge.
I do hope the stars behave and if something unexpected happens it is in HRC's favour. What a fighter our girl is!!
XO
WWW
Beware the wolf in sheep's clothing. Buchanan is an extreme right-wing Republican by nature, but abhors the neocons who have lately controlled the party. He is all those things one expects of the far right - anti-abortion, anti-gun control, anti-gays, etc.. He was against the Iraq war, seeing it as a neocon plot, but in favor of torturing terrorists. He believes in 'intelligent design' and once wrote that women are "simply not endowed by nature with the same measures of single-minded ambition and the will to succeed in the fiercely competitive world of Western capitalism." Also, that "The real liberators of American women were not the feminist noise-makers; they were the automobile, the supermarket, the shopping center, the dishwasher, the washer-dryer, the freezer."
He once called Hitler, "an individual of great courage", and Martin Luther King, Jnr "a divisive figure"
In his favor, he is against the Jewish control of Congress and its effects on US policy in the Middle East. He supports the Palestinian cause and has argued that terrorists target America "for what we do, not who we are."
He's a strongly religious idealist (Roman Catholic) and if he supports Clinton it is because he believes she will offer the kind of America more to his taste than Obama. It could also be argued any support of Clinton is based on his right-wing views, and a belief she would be an easier candidate for McCain to beat in November, but I consider that less likely. While I, personally, think McCain would stand more chance against her than Obama, I don't think Buchanan has much empathy with McCain, who while not himself a neocon, would be easily controlled by them. We have to remember George W Bush was no neocon when elected in 2000.
Buchanan is one of the more complex characters of the US political scene. He could be viewed as something of a 'flip-flopper', though in some matters he's very firm. One thing is for sure: he's no Democrat. His support for one can only stem from ulterior motives.
Thanks to y'all, TNPOTUS, WWW and RJ for your comments.
I can see I shall have to be very wary of Pat and his "common sense".
I'll keep everything you've mentioned in mind each time I watch him in future.
Maybe I'm turning conservative in my old age! In my very young days (in the UK) I used to think Anthony Eden and Harold MacMillan were the bees' knees, even Alec Douglas-Hulme wasn't so bad, RJ - LOL! Maybe I'm regressing.
Gawd help us all!
I'm not sure a leopard changes its spots so easily. But I do think the Republicans have realised with McCain that 'touchy-feely' politics wins votes.
That's what the Conservatives have started doing in the UK, and they're well ahead of Labour in the polls now.
David Cameron even said he wanted an end to 'Punch and Judy' politics ... before launching attack after attack on Brown.
Hi AN
That's interesting. Subtle political changes may be occurring both sides of the Atlantic then.
Here in the US there's another Republican, one of the original presidential candidates, who has that touchy-feely approach you mention - Mike Huckabee. I really like him, but not his policies. Same applies to Pat Buchanan.
These characters' softer approaches are made more noticeable just now due to the particularly harsh attitudes towards Hillary Clinton of many on the Democratic side - pundits, politicians, bloggers,commenters,& journalists.
Clinton supporters like myself are starting to feel alienated and willing to take a stray kind word from whatever source. In the process it's making me see that there may well be a kindly core within the most rabid of conservatives. :-)
Perhaps it's all serving some kind of evolutionary purpose purpose.
Hi Twilight,
This is the other thing that worries me. If the Republicans are going 'touchy-feely', and divisions are growing among the Democrats, could that split allow the Republicans in again?
That's the trillion dollar question, AN!
The Democratic National committee seems to think that, come November, Democrats will (mostly) stick together despite current threats of either not voting, voting for a 3rd party candidate, or voting for McCain if Obama is the nominee. I'm not experienced enough in US politics to know how things might pan out. I don't think anyone knows, this is so different from any previous election, one black candidate and one female candidate - both "firsts".
These last Bush years should ensure that next door's dog would win in the GE as Democratic candidate - in normal circumstances - but these are not normal.
The thought of 4 more years of conservative rule is daunting, but for me it's becoming increasingly clear that 4 years of Obama might be equally daunting. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my gut feeling, which will not change no matter what I try to tell myself.
Maybe VP coices will be a determining factor for many who are now doubtful about both Obama and McCain.
Post a Comment