Thursday, June 23, 2011

JOHN HUNTSMAN, Presidential Candidate

Had John Huntsman entered the presidential race as an Independent rather than a Republican I might have thought seriously of giving him my vote. He looks, to me, like the best of a bad lot (and that includes the incumbent president!)

As I wrote in an earlier post featuring Michele Bachmann, the presidential election really comes down to which personality one prefers as a figurehead, a brand, a logo, for the nation. Whoever wins, the true power, behind the presidential throne, will not change. Call it what you like - Oligarchy, Plutocracy, Corporatocracy - the US isn't a true democracy any longer.

With Huntsman running as an Independent many disaffected Democrats might have considered voting for Huntsman, if he talked a good game. Anyway, that's not happening....if wishes were horses beggars would ride!

Huntsman's birth detail including time of birth is available at The Political Blog. He was born at 11:58 am on March 26th, 1960 in Palo Alto, California. Chart and notes on astrology follow.

First, a few factors which could help or harm Huntsman's run.

He's not too old, not too young, attractive and "looks the part".

He is a Morman

He comes from a wealthy background - father is a billionaire businessman.

Served a Morman mission in Taiwan, speaks fluent Mandarin

Worked as a White House staff assistant for Ronald Reagan, and he was appointed by George H.W. Bush as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce and later as United States Ambassador to Singapore from 1992-1993.

Served 2 terms as Governor of Utah. While maintaining a budget surplus pushed hard on a broad reform agenda, with positive results. He helped lower the state's sales tax on food, re-structured the work week for state employees and made changes to the state's health care system that sought to lower the number of uninsured. During his tenure Utah was named the "Best Managed State in America" by Pew Research Center.

President Obama appointed him US Ambassador to China in 2009.

Sun and Moon in Aries = a pioneer, an initiator, a leader, in both heart and head. He'll have energy to spare, and would not be afraid of "taking the gloves off" faced with aggressive opposition.

Venus and Mercury in gentle intuitive Pisces bring a fine balance to his "harder" Aries side - I like that!

Mars in Aquarius should represent a fighter for social reform. Whereas Republicans generally are not known for true social reform, in his case I suspect he's drawn, at least somewhat, in this direction.

Jupiter and Saturn in Capricorn clearly mark his conservatism and air of authority. Saturn in its sign of rulership is particularly clear on this.

What I especially like in this chart is a Yod (Finger of Fate) with Uranus in Leo (planet of change and the avant garde) at its apex. The Yod links sextiled planets Mercury/Venus and Saturn to Uranus via two quincunx (150 degree) aspects. Characteristics of the planet at apex are said to "flavour" blended attributes of the sextiled planets. In this case planet of change and new ideas is the channel through which are blended Huntsman's conservative/authoritative/communicative/emotional/intuitive characteristics. For those of us who long for change, here's someone to watch!

Transiting Uranus is passing through Aries at present, and already passed his natal Moon once in March, (possibly around the time he decided to make a change in his lifestyle and run as candidate?) Uranus will retrograde back over his Moon later this year and will transit his natal Sun next year and on into 2013. Evidence of change, of some kind. His campaign will be a change of lifestyle in itself, of course. Though the presence of Uranus doesn't indicate success, it does seem significant that its transit will be so close to his Sun (self).

Transiting Pluto (planet of transformation) in Capricorn will not be near Huntsman's natal Jupiter until 2016. If at first he does not succeed, there's always 2016!


kicksotic said...

Despite being a Republican, he's a very attractive candidate and one the Obama Campaign shouldn't take lightly.

In looking at his Progressions, there's a lot of activity indicating change.

Not only does he have Progressed Mars (ruer of his Midheaven) in an applying conjunction with his Natal Sun -- less than one degree --, he also has
-- his Progressed Ascendant in the last degrees of Leo preparing to change Signs to Virgo
-- a Progressed Sun/Mercury conjunction still in orb of a conjunction with his Progressed Midheaven as well as in the final degrees of preparing to change Signs to Gemini
-- Progressed Venus trine Natal Saturn and then Progressed Saturn, and
-- Progressed Venus square Uranus, setting off that Finger of God or whatever it's called (I have two of those, I should at least know the name!)

In addition, the Progressed Moon will be in opposition with Natal Pluto the month of the Election, but also in an applying conjunction with his Mercury/Venus, once again triggering that Finger of God.

Should the Republicans reject him for not being Republican enough, I wouldn't be surprised if he jumped ship and ran as an Independent. That Progressed Mars touching his Sun is a bit too energetic and ambitious to take No for an answer!

The Incumbent President doesn't have any progressions like this. In fact, he'll be struggling through a Saturn t-square his Jupiter/Mercury throughout Primary Season and Voting Day-- soaring rhetoric and bumper sticker politics not quite doing the trick this time around, I guess -- and the Tr South Node conjunct his Moon all through Primary Season.

I can't help but think he'll have a very serious challenge in the Primaries. A very serious challenge.

Anonymous said...

Visibly, T. you have a liking for Huntsman - first true "hunter" I perceive to be able to succeed to oust O. next year.

Astrologically the situation gets very interesting, I would say:

Superposing the two horoscopes, there is an almost "karmic connection" between the two. (I still have my doubts about O's place of birth, details for why so in the PS hereafter):

Huntsman's action place of his YOD is exactly pointing onto O's Ascendant (18 degr. Aquarius if born in Hawaii). As the Yod in astrological tradition is called "Finger of God", I may be interpreting correctly by saying that if there is a fraud in where O. was really born, Huntsman's destiny may be to "sanction that".

If O. were born in Mombasa (Kenya), his AS would be at 27 degr. Aquarius. Huntman's Mars is at 25 degr.- only 2' away. and exactly opposite O's Uranus.

In my personal observation, including in sports like boxing and horse-races, Aries predominates over Leo (O's sun sign). If we have a real fight here - which I suspect - its going to be fun, at least that! GP

PS. My reasons for still doubting O's birth place is that

1) he litterally paniqued at Trump's invasion of his "house of cards". Only a few month before Trump's "cavalcade", Hawaii's Governor (a Democrat) said that they could not find O's long-format certificate. The Governor, not just some employee. Then it was "found", as by magic, after O's. paniquing. Trump, a professionnal bluffer, visibly out-pokered another of the same kind.

2) Why would O. before that have spent around $2 million of his personal money in lawyer's fees to resist publication of this long-format certificate? (And if it is false, how much can that have cost?)

3) Why does O. still object in court to have any of his "educational records" released. Does not speak for the transparency he had promised to be elected.

PPS. Thanks, T. for your advice. I now sign-up GP and thereby do not risk anymore my E-mail address being leaked.

PPPS. Just red what KICKSOTIC is saying: Looking at Huntman's map I could easily imagine that he might "forget about the Republican party" and run as independent. May more astrologers"Aquarians/Uranians" get into giving him a hand (not just some fingers, be they even "of God").

Wisewebwoman said...

I think personal beliefs (i.e. faith system, religion) come into play when presenting for high office and the power of a US president.
That said, I know that the corporations are now completely running things and doing so without thought of the peons, so it is all a meaningless sedative for 'we the people'.

Twilight said...

kicksotic ~~~ Thank you for the additional input. I'm wary of progressions myself, but am certinly interested in what you've brought up here, using them.

I hope you're right and if rejected as nominee for Repubs he decides to run as Independent/Third Party.

Twilight said...

Anonymous aka Gian Paul ~~~

Thanks for your extra input, GP.
Very interesting!

A real fight between these Aries and Leo-types would be a fight for which I'd want a ringside seat! ;-)

The birth certificate thing will never go away, and we'll never know the truth. Still it's something we can keep in mind astrologically as a side issue and alternative chart (just in case!)

Twilight said...

WWW ~~~ Yes, his Mormonism might be thought to be an obstacle by Evangelical Republican types, enough so that it could spoil his chances of nomination.

It is, as you say, all pretty meaningless as far as running the country goes. A figurehead will emege to take part in the global show - maybe the same one we have now, maybe a different figure.
It's circus, complete with clowns, strongmen, pretty girls, lions tigers and bears.....Oh my!

Anonymous said...

What I see....South Node in Pisces on the MC. Not good for a leader.

Also, Neptune is currently (and for the next year) sitting on his natal Chiron. Pisces, again. Religion WILL be an issue.

James Higham said...

You forgot to mention he's gay.

Twilight said...

Anonymous ~~ Yes, there are several drawbacks astrologically.
It depends become factors prove stronger which weaker. We shall see. :-)

Twilight said...

James Higham ~~ I haven't come across the idea so far. If he is I don't care, but where's the evidence?

Anonymous said...

GP:James Higham indicates that H. is gay. Looking at his map it's very possible: His Mercury trines Neptune and his AS. My personal observations in this respect are positive.

If he were gay - and "came out of the closet" in a strait-forward way, it should be a positive. Would ake out much of the stigma of a "puritan Mormon". We are all so human, arent'we?

Twilight said...

James Higham and GP (aka Anon)

I suspect lines have become crossed somewhere on this "gay" topic.

Jon Huntsman Snr - the presidential candidate's father
in 2007 co-founded a new private equity firm called Huntsman Gay Global.

Also Huntsman Jnr supports civil union for gays, something which has brought him support from gays in Utah.

Huntsman and his wife has 7 children - not that that would mean he's not gay - but where is any evidence at all that he is?

This is a rightwing attempt at smearing one of the decent candidates in the race in my opinion, to make way for some of the crazies.

Astrologically, GP, I don't believe sexual orientation is shown in the chart anymore than male or female gender is - that's my own view anyway.

Anonymous said...

I did not make any horoscope of a woman whom I knew being gay (to my knowledge at least). But of several males (even at the demand of their preoccupied parents). A Mercury in combination with Neptune and water appears to indicate what I said before, gender being known, behaviour or potential leanings going in a non-normal way. GP

Twilight said...

Anonymous - aka Gian Paul ~~

I've just finished drafting a brief-ish post for next week on the topic GP.
A thought about what you've said though - about Mercury/Neptune/the Water element. Sure enough a gay person might have those factors linked and emphasised - but at the same time those factors could ALSO indicate a poet or a painter or a photographer (for example) - who is heterosexual.

Anonymous said...

GP: just one more element to what you say, T. - this question of gay/half-gay/just phantasizing is probably as much dependant on milieu/circumstances/hormonal balance (and the type of food one eats, yes(!). In Argentina (besides them believing being more intelligent than most - and the Brazilians anyway - they also claim having the lowest gay population in the world. Because they consume about the double of meat per capita then others. This, if true, may change over time as also in Argentina "modern supplements" (who knows what's in those) are being fed to their cattle.

Twilight said...

Anon ~~ aka Gian Paul ~~

Well, yes. Just as in any situation, preference, predisposition, many strands of circumstance of the individual or situation have to be taken into consideration.

This whole topic is a bit questionable though, don't you think? Look at it this way:

The reason for a couple to be one male/one female was originally to procreate. When the Earth's population was sparse this was an absolute necessity to preserve the species. Religion came along - all versions - and took control of this aspect, for their own reasons.

Really and truly, in the Earth's current condition - overpopulated, resources being drained - do we need to be quite so adamant about procreation? And if not, why all this emphasis on hetero is "the norm". Why is it the norm?

Anonymous said...

I think that at least as far as the male homos are concerned, what you call the norm was probably not just a question of procreation, but hygiene as well.

If AIDS has spread at such a terrific speed, I probably speak the truth in that respect. And how many more yet unknown bugs will such type of fornication bring about?

I have personally some aversion against homosexuals. As a student I worked as a ski-teacher during holidays and week-ends. Several of my young collegues then, like myself were too often incommodated by some gay tourist (then mostly from America, comming to fashionable St. Moritz) with just, for us, "some dirty business in mind".

I suppose, even if you appear more tollerant, that you agree with me that this type of attempts of perversion still today should be denounced - how about the great number of priests, mostly catholic, indulging in a similar fashion in what is rightly considered "quer behaviour"? GP

Twilight said...

Anaon/Gian Paul ~~~

But cannot one make the same health and hygiene arguments against hetero sex when practiced unsafely - syphillis, gonorhea etc?

I will agree, regarding the types of gays who try to impose themselves on others - but then the same applies to hetero people who try to impose themselves - they are all simply annoying nuisances.

The pedophiles in the RC church are a different matter entirely.

Many gays lead ordinary lives with a partner of their own sex and bother nobody. They love one another, ask for nothing but equality with the rest of us.
I see nothing at all wrong in it.

There are some wrongs possible on all sides of sexual preference, but if one concentrates on the rights there's a different picture entirely. It's not fair to generalise.

Anonymous said...

GP: The news in Brazil today (there is a gay parade tomorrow in São Paulo) carry a UN/WHO study finding that male homos run 20 x the risk of catching (or transmitting) AIDS.

A still poor country like Brazil, in need to distribute condoms for free as about half the population would not buy them (for lack of resources), is struggling like hell (the Health Ministry says) to keep risky sex behaviour within limits.

Fairness also should take into account young victims of irresponsible adult "gay behaviour". It's not all fun, seen from anorther, informed perspective.

Twilight said...

Anon/Gian Paul ~

I agree about "victims of irresponsible adult "gay behaviour" - and I'd also point out victims of rape and abuse perpetrated by heterosexuals.

As in everything, GP, I'm sure you'll agree, balance is essential. Those whose behaviour, whether heterosexual or homosexual
is practiced in a way detrimental to the other person it's always wrong.