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].

[Q]: What is the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Mitt Romney ? Imagine you 're Mitt Romney . 
"I think Mitt Romney would want to have a little bit more influence than a first-time senator would typically have . 
Romney needs to know he 's going to have some clout if and when he get to Washington . 
With rumors that Mitt Romney is more seriously exploring a Senate run in Utah , many political observers are wondering why ? 
He says there 's a few reasons Romney may want to re-enter politics . 
Atlantic writer McKay Coppins first reported on Romney considering the idea last spring . 
"By all accounts everyone I talk to says that this would be a cakewalk for Romney ," says Coppins . 
"The reasons for Mitt Romney running are two-fold : one , he 's genuinely alarmed by Donald Trump 's rise ," says Coppins . 
Finally , Romney will need to have the blessing of his family , especially his wife Ann , to re-enter the political fray . 
But Coppins says he seems to be warming to the idea with Romney waiting in the wings . 
The second item on Romney 's checklist ?
[A]: Neutral


[Q]: What is the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Rand Paul ? The Senate passed a sweeping bipartisan spending bill Friday morning  but not before the federal government shut down when Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) delayed the vote past midnight to complain about the budget deficit. It was the second government shutdown in less than three weeks.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Feb. 8 spoke on the Senate floor against a bipartisan budget deal and delayed a vote on the measure. (U.S. Senate)
Then  as an expected vote approached in the Senate   Paul  began to throw up roadblocks  demanding a vote on  his  amendment that would demonstrate how the two-year budget deal breaks past pledges to rein in federal spending.
GOP leaders refused to allow  him  to offer the amendment  arguing that if  Paul  got an amendment vote  many other senators might want one  too.  Paul   in turn  refused to allow the vote to go forward  making use of Senate rules that allow individual senators to slow down proceedings that require the consent of all.
“I can’t in all good honesty  in all good faith  just look the other way because my party is now complicit in the deficits ”  Paul  said on the Senate floor as evening pushed into night.
 Paul  objected after a visibly irritated McConnell tried to move to a vote. Then  Paul  launched into a lengthy floor speech deriding bipartisan complicity on deficit spending while the country goes “on and on and on  finding new wars to fight that make no sense.” The senator direly predicted a “day of reckoning ” possibly in the form of the collapse of the stock market.
As the hours ticked on   Paul  repeatedly refused to consent to allowing the vote to happen  as lawmakers and aides of both parties grew increasingly annoyed at  him . Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.)  leaving the floor after an unsuccessful attempt to curtail  Paul ’s standoff  called the gambit “grossly irresponsible” and said that leaders would not entertain  his  demand for a vote.
Senators of both parties were left fuming  with most of their ire directed toward  Paul .
“ He  has mastered the art of ticking off  his  colleagues ” said Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.).
“It’s a colossal waste of everybody’s time ” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.). Of  Paul   Thune said  “He never gets a result.”
 Paul himself  made no apologies as  he  delivered one floor speech after another  casting  himself  as a lone defender of fiscal austerity  despite having voted in December for a tax bill that added at least $1 trillion to the debt.
[A]: Positive


[Q]: What is the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Claire McCaskill ? But what  McCaskill  fails to mention is  her  role in the very scourge  she  seeks to fix by forcing businesses to spend their own money to address it.
So we know what the problem is  but does  Claire McCaskill ? While  she  supported E-Verify in the past (no doubt since it puts a burden on private businesses instead of holding the government accountable)   she  has been a good foot soldier for the Democrats' open border policy.
 She  supports chain migration  sanctuary cities  funding for executive amnesty  and funding for processing centers for Central American unaccompanied minors.  She  voted for the DREAM Act  against a bill to prevent suing Arizona for immigration law  and against defunding sanctuary cities.
 Claire  has done this to the great displeasure of  her  Missouri constituents. So now  she  needs a red herring  and  she  will boldly work with Republicans to craft legislation forcing all businesses to do a pile of sleuthing to verify the identities of applicants for their products  and perhaps put those companies in danger of running afoul of civil rights laws by profiling.  Claire  doesn't care that this will cost the consumer  or that it is abusive to make a private business do the work the government just won't do.
But then  why should  she  care?  She  defrauded taxpayers herself  using government money to finance flights on  her  airplane and then not paying taxes on it.
But then  by  her  standards  doesn't everyone?
[A]:
Positive