Given a document and an entity the task is to select the author's sentiment towards the entity. Sentiments can be Positive, Neutral and Negative. Select Positive if the article expresses a positive view towards the given entity or praises its quality or skills. Select Neutral if the document expresses no clear view towards the entity or has equal amounts of positive and negative statements or expressing some fact/quote by someone else. Select Negative if the article expresses a negative view towards like harsh remarks, criticizing entities action/decision etc. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].

[EX Q]: What is the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Bill Haslam ? Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam announced on Thursday that  he  will not run for the Republican nomination to replace retiring Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) in the 2018 election.
â Gov Bill Haslam  will not run for the U.S. Senate seat held by retiring Sen. Bob Corker  leaving U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn as the likely frontrunner  if  she  chooses to run â The Tennessean reported on Thursday morning:
The governor  who is term-limited  made the announcement Thursday in a news release. âWhile Crissy and I will always be grateful for all of the encouragement and support to run for the United States Senate  I am announcing today that I will not be a candidate for Senate in 2018 â  Haslam  said in a statement.
The full statement  released by the governorâs office Thursday morning  offered this explanation of  his  decision not to run for the United States Senate in 2018:
 Haslam âs announcement comes in the wake of a recent series of articles at Breitbart News that highlighted  his  political vulnerabilities:
While conservatives have been coalescing around a potential candidacy of Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN-07)   Haslamâs  decision not to run leaves a void that the establishment Republicans in the state are likely to fill with another candidate.
[EX A]: Neutral

[EX Q]: What is the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Laura Ingraham ? Laura Ingraham  was one of the few people who saw Donald Trumpâs shocking victory coming. More importantly  as a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan who saw firsthand how viciously the Bush-aligned establishment despised Reaganâs working-class voters   Ingraham  understands how powerful the conservative-populist movement is and why the elites in the permanent political class have spent gazillions and worked overtime for three decades to thwart it.
In  her  blockbuster new book  Billionaire at the Barricades: The Populist Revolution from Reagan to Trump  Ingraham  the best-selling author  explains how Trump got elected and the forces heâand other economic nationalistsâwill have to battle to implement the peopleâs agenda.
Billionaire at the Barricades is a must-read because  Ingraham   who still gets chills when she sees footage of the crowd at Kemper Arena in 1976 realizing they had nominated the wrong man in Gerald Ford  takes readers on a fast-paced journey through the 2016 campaign cycle and shows how everyone who was blindsided by Trumpâs rise should have seen it coming  especially after Dave Bratâs shocking primary victory over then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) in 2014.
Elites give off the impression that Trumpâs populism on the campaign trail was something they had never seen before when  in fact  every candidate who has won the presidency in the television age has been the one who was the most populist. As  Ingraham  writes  âpresidential candidates invoke the populist style because it connects with working people.â
Conservatism and populism  according to  Ingraham   âoverlap in their opposition to âbig thingsââbig government  big international organizations  big media  big business cronyism.â
Reagan understood that âthese distant  uncaring entities rob people of decision making and ignore their interests â and  Ingraham  notes that âPat Buchanan and Donald Trump summarized conservative populism best when each vowed to put âAmerica first.ââ
âConservative populists tend to support a policy of economic nationalismâpeople-centered economic policies that put the nation and its workers first. They oppose a massive national debt because it weakens America and makes its citizens beholden to lenders â  she  continues. âThey also believe high taxes are bad because they sap workersâ wages and economic freedom. Similarly  they are against huge trade deals and international organizations like the World Trade Organization because they take power out of the hands of voters and give it to a far-away and often hostile global elite.â
When it comes to foreign policy   Ingraham  explains that âconservative populists oppose broad military interventionism and believe military force should only be used when American interests are threatened.â  She  slams populismâs critics who foolishly toss around âthe term âisolationismâ to dismiss populist foreign policy â even though that label does not describe any populist  she  has ever known.
 Ingraham  points out that âthroughout the Cold War  populists were among the strongest voices opposing Soviet communism.â In addition  populists have always believed that âsquandering the nationâs wealth and blood on un-winnable wars and nation-building is unwise. Instead  they support a pragmatic foreign policy based on achieving âpeace through strengthâ by maintaining a strong military and using it prudently.â
Unfortunately  as  Ingraham  details  âsome conservatives took a dangerous detourâ and âthrust us into a bizarre world of globalization  wars based on idealism and nation-building  and intense hatred toward the very voters who accounted for the Reagan coalition in the first place.â
The betrayal started almost immediately after George H.W. Bush won Reaganâs third term. The Bush administration purged Reaganites  and  Ingraham  recalls that Margaret Tutwiler told Reaganite Ed Rollins at a party that âthere are a lot of us who had to suffer during the eight years of Reagan  and now itâs our turn.â
âWe were Reagan people. They were Bush people. We all knew what the differences were â  Ingraham  writes. âMany of the GOP Establishment types who behind closed doors scoffed at Reagan as a dim-witted former actor with anââultraconservativeâ outlook were now working in the Bush administration. They thought it was time to return the Republican Party to what they believed was its more genteel  respectable roots. In effect  it meant the return to power of the Rockefeller Republicans who had worked to deny Reagan the presidency in 1976.â
Bushâs Office of Management and Budget Director Richard Darman convinced Bush to infamously abandon his âread my lipsâ pledge not to raise taxes  and  in the end   Ingraham  argues that âGeorge H. W. Bush stalled the conservative-populist engine that powered Reaganism.â As Rollins said  âGeorge Bush was the beneficiary of the greatest baton pass in presidential history in 1988  and he and his people tossed it away.â
âGlobalism is fundamentally anti-American because it aims to raze American sovereignty by atrophying our ability to take independent actions that are in our nationâs best interests â  Ingraham  writes  pointing out that globalists do not understand that âbecause of the enormous anti-American sentiment around the world  itâs almost impossible to create a multinational organization where U.S. interests donât become compromised or harmed.â
Just like his father  George W. Bush campaigned as a populist but governed as a globalist.  Ingraham  blames âBushâs decision to aggressively pursue amnesty after his unpopular warâ for insulting the âmillions of conservative-populists who had worked so hard to put him in power.â
âBecause of Bush  conservatives lost everything â  she  continues. âWe lost the House. We lost the Senate. And we lost the White House.â
[EX A]: Positive

[EX Q]: What is the sentiment of the following document towards the entity John Fritchey ? Shuftan made his comments after Commissioners John Fritchey and Luis Arroyo Jr.  both Chicago Democrats  announced they would introduce a resolution next week to put the question on the March 20 primary ballot.
After his announcement   Fritchey  made the rounds of the county boardroom at an unrelated committee meeting  asking for support.
A longtime advocate of making recreational marijuana use legal   Fritchey  pointed to the legalization and taxation of recreational marijuana in Colorado and Washington. State and local governments in Illinois could expect to bring in $500 million a year in pot taxes based on those statesâ experiences   he  said.
âItâs about unclogging a court system that is overburdened â  Fritchey  said. âIf we can take these cases out of the court system  we will be doing a tremendous service not just to the individuals but to the court system as well.â
âAlmost 90 percent of these cases get dismissed  doing nothing but leaving individuals with an arrest record â  he  added. âWe are wasting court resources. We are damaging lives. And we have the ability to do better.â
Fritchey â a former state lawmaker â also said  he  hoped a successful ballot question in Cook County would spur legislators to take a vote on a potentially thorny issue during an election year in 2018.
Sen. Heather Steans and Rep. Kelly Cassidy  both of whom like  Fritchey  live on the cityâs North Side  introduced legislation in March to allow the possession of up to 28 grams of pot  or about an ounce  and to grow five plants. Their proposals call for a tax of $50 an ounce  plus the standard state 6.25 percent sales tax. Local governments like the city and county collect their own sales taxes  so they likely also would bring in more money as a result of legalization.
[EX A]:
Neutral