6 Ways Astrology Confirms Why I Can’t Stand Mitt Romney

A few weeks ago, I outlined some of my reservations and thoughts about synastry, the astrological art of comparing charts, here.  So now I can focus on what compelled me to write that piece in the first place:  to use astrology to better understand why I can’t stand Mitt Romney.

It’s both baffling and kind of not. It’s kind of not, because there’s more than enough footage and ink spilled on why I could come to think of Mitt as an opportunistic liar and flip-flopper who’ll do anything to get in the White House.  I mean even if I didn’t know or read all of that about Mitt, as an animal lover, how could I like a presidential candidate who’ll put his own dog in a dog crate on top of the car roof for a cross country trip? But is there an astrological correlation to my bias?

That question leads more to the baffling and more qualitative part. This is not one of those astrological posts that has any pretense of objectivity. In fact, just to be clear, I don’t really believe a chart ever just speaks for itself, objectively. So I won’t be looking at my chart or Mitt’s with any sense that our charts spell out unequivocally why I can’t stand him.  They don’t. Our charts don’t make something so as much as note something as so. But the astrology does mirror the nearly bottomless well of rancor that I have toward a man I’ve never met and his prospects as a presidential candidate.  And that’s the baffling part. There are only a few people I’ve never met who, for one reason or another, I can’t stand.  Romney is one. (For the record, Morgan Freeman is another. More on him another time.)  So I decided to look to astrology to see if there are some clues as to why I can’t stand a man I’ve never met and who I have only observed via video and what’s written about him.  Before I start, here’s our info and our two charts combined.

Mitt Romney–March 12, 1947, 9:51 am, Detroit, MI vs. Samuel Reynolds–November 22, 1967, 1:19 pm, Buffalo, NY

Here’s a breakdown of the various glyphs for the planets and signs we’ll be referencing:

I won’t be using all of these glyphs. In fact, I don’t use half of them.  But you’ll have a reference point. Yes, so don’t feel bad if you don’t know what Pholus and Nessus are, for example. I don’t either, and I’m okay with that.

1. His Saturn sits right on my Moon

Mitt has the inner wheel (my only deference, since he’s older) and I’m on the outer wheel.  My Moon lines up with his Saturn (referencing the chart above) by the same exact degree, 2 degrees Leo…almost to the minute.That’s significant. Here’s why.

First off, Saturn isn’t happy in Leo. (He does better in the opposite sign, Aquarius, where he has a home.)  Saturn is the planet symbolizing authority, discipline and how one fulfills one’s role in your society.  Mitt badly wants authority and feels like he’s not given his due. My Moon in Leo sees him as a wet blanket that I’m sitting on at an otherwise pleasant picnic in the park. And given that my moon and his Saturn are in the same degree, the blanket is sopping wet.  Had his Saturn been 6 degrees, for instance, then I’d still have a wet blanket, but it wouldn’t be as wet. My moon will never recognize his authority, because his Saturn in Leo struggles to get some rather than honoring the authority that he rightfully got from his father, another thing symbolized by Saturn. So I guess I’ll always see him as a petty ruler.

2. My Sun-Neptune can’t get with his Moon and Jupiter

My Sun-Neptune combo suggests a lot of things, but one of the things it suggests is that I’m fairly idealistic.  However, because of other factors in my chart, that idealism has taken a serious knocking over time.  So I like to better describe myself as a recovering cynic.  Mitt’s partile (same degree @ 27 degrees) moon-Jupiter combo takes me out of that recovery process.  A word about his Moon first.

His moon in Scorpio is miserable.

Mostly because the Moon THRIVES in its opposite place, Taurus.  So, again, Mitt feels like he never has his due. This gets magnified by the great expander, Jupiter. Now, fortunately, Jupiter is chillin’ in Scorpio.  He neither loses “dignity” nor does he gain any.  He just hypes up Mitt’s Moon. This partly signifies Romney’s extraordinary fortune.  It could also suggest what could be his greed.  There could be argument that the chilaxin’ Jupiter would make my Sun feel good since he’s pretty close to it. And that would have been true if my Sun didn’t have to fend off his greedy, contentious Moon. I’m pretty sure that if Mitt and I were ever in the same room, he’d have a complaint about something or another that would piss me off.  Probably just at the moment I would have a thought like, “Oh, he’s not that bad.”

3. His Mars hits my Ascendant, my gateway to the world

With his Mars in stealthy Pisces on my ascendant, how I experience the world around me, I can’t help but be suspicious of him. Mars represents how we express our desire in action, not attraction. That’s Venus.  In Pisces, Mars can’t be as straightforward as he’d like to be.  That’s pretty much how I see Mitt.  But that offends me deeply for some reason.  You’d think my Pisces rising would understand that or have compassion for that. But it doesn’t.  I think I know why.

4. Mitt’s Mars also has a tug of war with my Jupiter, the patron of my ascendant

In all fairness, my Ascendant’s patron, Jupiter, is in an inhospitable place, Virgo.  In Virgo, Jupiter’s normal grandeur and ebullient faith gets too focused and analytical. So I can only fulfill the demands of deep faith and compassion of my Ascendant through analysis and focused intent.  That explains my cynicism.  That also explains this post and the other one. (Ahem.)  Anyway, a Mars-Jupiter face off like what “Mittens” and I have could be inspiring. If we were somehow on the same side, my Jupiter would “uplift” him and his Mars would provide action and focus for our jointly shared ideas.  Only one prob: his Mars is on my Ascendant. So he pisses me off or angers me (Mars) somehow. Then my Jupiter picks up the cue and symbolically analyzes it, possibly even exaggerating the slight.  Oh well.

5. Mitt’s Sun is opposite to my Pluto

Pluto likes to probe into the depths of something, and I’ve certainly probed Mitt’s chart more than any presidential hopeful that I’ve known. (Yes, even more than Barack Obama.)  If we had the hope of being a couple, this aspect could signal two “interesting” options: an obsession or lots of fights for control. Since we’re not a couple (Allah be praised!), I think it signals that Mitt gets in my craw something fierce and I spend a lot of time trying to figure it out and get the bile it creates out of my system.  One of my favorite astro sites, cafeastrology.com, describes the aspect this way:

“You draw out each other’s dark sides, and there can frequently be battles of will between the two of you. There is a compulsive quality to your partnership that can be unnerving at times, and exhausting as well. Your connection certainly runs deep, and the very nature of your relationship makes it an especially significant one.”

That sounds about right.  But I’m never exhausted by digging into Mitt Romney.  He “powers” up my Mars-Pluto connection (seen below):

That means that when it comes to the dislike I have for this dude, I’m indefatigable. I could beat on the man all day long. I guess the only reason I don’t is to have some semblance of a life, a career and pleasure.

6. Romney’s Uranus faces off against my Midheaven

My midheaven represents what I aspire toward as the highest calling of who I can be in my society or community.  Uranus represents the most unique aspect of one’s identity and how youerupt out of the hardened Earth of conventional thinking to express your sense of truth.  So does Mitt’s individuality oppose my highest calling of who I can be? Perhaps and this could be the most interesting dynamic between me and Mittens.

There’s something about him that shakes up my worldview. It’s not that hard to figure out: his Uranus in Gemini means that he might be original, but he’s not necessarily a straight shooter (the Gemini part).  Although I’m a recovering cynic, I still believe in Truth, somehow. That would be my MC in Sagittarius (the seeker of Truth). I don’t like to admit my belief in truth, even to myself.  And if you know me personally, you might even hear me disparage belief in Truth. But it’s there. I just don’t believe it is all that we think it is. With Mitt, though, I get a better sense of Truth, because I see him as the opposite of it.  I may not know all that Truth is, but I know he’s not true or truthful.

However, I wonder if another Uranus-like disruption I experience with Mitt is a deep seated fear that my country (from my 4th house of native soil and where Mitt’s Uranus lands in my chart) is so resistant to Obama and his ideas for change that it would elect him President. That bothers me–deeply and true to Uranian form, I find that unsettling.  He’s dangerous enough to be the nauseous squall that tears my tattered flag of idealism and liberalism right off the flagpole of my MC. That’s the symbolic implication that keeps me wondering and stoking my wrath on Romney.

So, as I say frequently on twitter, eff Mitt Romney. I’m doing everything in my power to make sure he’s never gonna be President of the United States. And I won’t stop.  I even have the charts to confirm it.


Is astrology an instrument of control or understanding?

For the last few months, I’ve been working with a friend to bring the Zodiac Lounge to Philadelphia. Yesterday I spoke with an important connection, based on referral from my friend, to make that happen. We had a good convo about the space where we might have the Zodiac Lounge, some common people we know (as Philly is a wonderful big little town) and some next steps. As we were getting off the phone, she surprised me by relaying a question that someone in the background was asking her, “Do I want our chart (astrological) information?” I laughed and said, “No. I didn’t need that quite yet.” She laughed and then we said our goodbyes.

As I hung up, I wondered for a second if they will think I’m not a serious astrologer if I would be remiss in getting such *vital* information? In fact, at astrology conferences, many astrologers will have their rising, moon and sun signs right on their name tags under their names.  People will have whole conversations talking only about their placements. Even after studying, teaching and practicing astrology for over 20 years, I find that strange and baffling.

I had to think why don’t I think about that kinda stuff first.  The only thing I could realize is that I only use astrology with people I meet in real life, who aren’t clients, when I want to understand something that I don’t understand.  When I’m meeting people for the first time, I want to experience them as I perceive them, not as astrology “snapshots” them.  However, before the first meeting, there’s rarely something that I don’t understand as I don’t have any real information or knowledge of the person anyway. Nor do I want it.  So why do people do use astrology that way? The only thing I could reason is that people are struck by the allure of control that astrology offers.

For many reasons, legitimate or otherwise, people seem to negotiate safety and trust in people through knowledge or things that they feel give the knowledge.  This knowledge can either lead to understanding or feed control issues.  There is a thin line between the two and we can fool ourselves as we dance along that line.

If we use knowledge as a tool of understanding, then we can see how a dynamic works without necessarily attempting to alter it. We may be just content to experience it…or not. When knowledge becomes a tool of control, we feel the need to do something about what can or should happen with this knowledge or to anticipate events based on what we perceive. For me, that’s stressful although I recognize that may be soothing for others.

For instance, let’s say I get the chart info of my new contact before I meet her. Then let’s say she turns out to have a Sun at 29 degrees Taurus, meaning she’s born May 20, 21 or 22 (depending on the year and hour), I might conjecture that I could have problems w/ her based on my recent challenging experiences with people having planets at that degree.  (My Sun is at 29 degrees Scorpio.) Can I truly avoid coming in with possibly erroneous thoughts and perceptions about her based on my experiences? Will I stay disciplined (and open) or will I look for information that confirms my bias?  Likewise, will I modify my behavior to counter perceptions of her behavior that may or may not be there?  If I modify my behavior based on perceptions that haven’t even clearly formed yet, then am I authentically meeting her…or her scarecrow that I’ve made? I tend to think I would be constructing a scarecrow as I won’t have enough information about her to really know.

That’s why I think establishing relationships based on synastry alone is a crapshoot at best. One can blind oneself to a host of possibilities using astrology by ONLY focusing on the astrology, not on how the person is living the chart or a host of other factors. For instance, an astrologer, with enough charts, can find your ideal astrologically derived partner, but what if they’re a different sex than you prefer? Or way older or younger than you prefer? This goes to show you that it’s not just about the astro compatibility.  It’s about how and if you can really meet that person where they are. The astrology is a map to navigate the sea of relationship, not to contain it. It can tell you how vast or close the sea may be, but not always the condition of the waters.

Shying away from sea metaphors for a sec, the compatibility of charts only testify to possibilities and probabilities. I think giving too much primacy to those things sets up too many temptations for control more than understanding.

So I’m glad I said, “Not yet.” If my contacts wonder among themselves about what kind of astrologer I am who doesn’t ask for the info of new people he encounters, then I hope they realize that I’m the adventurous kind. I’ll pick up a map once I get there, but charting out too much before I get to the destination could blind me from seeing what’s most important while giving me the illusion that I know more than I do.