The 2012 Presidential Candidate Scorecard… for Atheists

They give Obama an ‘A’ on “religious discrimination and civil rights.” This may be true if you look only at civil rights cases involving religious discrimination, but Obama’s overall record on civil rights is pretty terrible when you include “Patriot Act” type stuff like indefinite detention of prisoners.

But but…  those laws are for terrorists and non citizens..   😉

The good news about Ron Paul is that he’s extremely conscious of states’ rights issues (did I put the apostrophe in the right place there?)

I’d rather have him as President – I don’t care what he personally believes as long as he doesn’t interfere with what  *I* believe.  

Being an atheist Republican makes voting season a real pain.  If Romney gets the nomination I’ll vote for him without a second thought; I’ll likely not vote at all if a Bachmann-esque candidate wins (that’s highly unlikely), though that would be for a combination of “atheist” and Republican reasons.

Personally I think the “atheist issues” tend to pale in comparison to “secular” considerations (healthcare, taxes, national policy, etc).  It’s nice to know where the candidates stand on things like “accepts evolution”, but ultimately whether or not they invade another country or reform entitlements is vastly more important.

Inevitably every election season brings out the hyperbolic prognostications. “If a GOP candidate wins, it’s the end of America as we know it!” “If Obama wins, it’s the end of America as we know it!” Forgetting, of course, the fact that there are already laws on the books, two houses of Congress, a Supreme Court, businesses, lobbyists, etc. etc. that blunt the effect of any election makes one prone to crazy ideas.

10 years ago, the GOP candidate won, and America as I know it ended.

If only he didn’t think states’ rights meant that it was OK for states to discriminate against minorities, ban abortion, ban gay marriage, and prevent the non-religious from participating publicly just so long as the federal government doesn’t interfere.

No, it really isn’t.

I would infinitely prefer someone like Huntsman to win the nomination. I just couldn’t stomach the possibility of someone like Bachman or Perry actually winning. It’s embarrassing enough that folks consider them legitimate candidates for the nomination.

And yet we’re still here, having elections, and discussing it all over again. Thanks for proving my point.

I can’t believe they gave Obama an ‘A’ on “Science-Based Legislation and Regulations” when his administration overruled the FDC on providing emergency birth control to minors, even though extensive testing showed it to be safer than Tylenol. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-defends-administrations-refusal-to-relax-plan-b-restrictions/2011/12/08/gIQAJSZbfO_story.html

That knocks him down to a B, at best.

Sorry for the weird spacing; I pasted text which messed this up.

Funny, I thought the same thing. Huntsman seems to be the only non-crazy GOP candidate (and I thought that wasn’t possible anymore!..), but has one chance in hell to win the nomination. Romney looks like a smart, well-educated, qualified, entitled ass. With his flip-flops (and I’m not talking about “10 years ago he was for that, and now he’s against” — he changed a few of his positions in just the last year or two, whichever way the wind blows) it’s impossible to predict what he’s about. In the end he could be kind of like Huntsman, could be kind of like Perry. He’s more into it for the money and power than anything else — of course, who isn’t, but then he shows complete disregard for people, wanting only their votes. In that regard, I hate to say it, but I like somebody like Bachmann a lot better: at least she knows what she stands for and sticks to it.

The rest of them are vile, despicable douchebags — Bachmann, Perry, Santorum, Gingrich, even Paul, who has his fair share of crazy ass bigotry and fucked-up ideas. Let’s see where this circus brings us… I will likely not be able to vote this coming fall, but I’ll hold my fingers for y’all.

Thank you for posting this. I will be able to vote for the first time for the next presidential election and it’s helpful to see all this information in one place.

On the contrary, I’ve followed and talked with libertarians for decades. It’s libertarians themselves I’ve found who have the least understand what their beliefs actually mean when in practice.

I’m personally leaning toward Gary Johnson, who was trying for the Republican nomination but will now probably be running Libertarian. ( http://www.garyjohnson2012.com )

Is it futile? I don’t know. I still hold to the idea that as long as we believe we can’t break the two-party system, we really can’t. Hopefully votes for third-party candidates are telling the “other two” what some of their soon-to-be clients expect of them.

I’m going with Jill Stein. 

Either that or Cthulhu – because if you are going to vote for an evil, why waste your time on the lesser one?

I don’t get why they gave Paul a “C” for Church-State separation, rather than the “F” he deserves. He’s made it quite clear that he doesn’t believe in Church-State separation except where the Federal Government is concerned, and that State and Local governments should be allowed to establish a State religion if they want. He doesn’t believe the Constitution should apply to the States and Local governments at all, which includes (obviously) the First Amendment.

Hmmm reasonable vs. supervillain….though one.

On the one hand, I think Huntsman would elevate the debate and force the GOP to moderate their full sprint into rightwing lunacy. On the other hand, Huntsman is reasonable enough to win, and that would represent a Republican executive, with a Republican House and, if they won just 2 seats, a Republican Senate. I shudder to think what the GOP Congress would pass if they didn’t have to go up against Obama’s veto pen.

Then again, I’ve learned my lesson about “Oh I hope they nominate that moron, so the Democrats have it easy”. That’s what I thought in the ’00 election, and that gave us Dubya….

Gore lost his own state. If he’d won it, he’d have won the election.

Romney deserves an F in the category “Attitude Toward Nontheists.”

In December 2007, during his first bid for the Republican Presidential nomination, he delivered a very important speech.  Faced with Christian fundamentalists’ contempt and suspicion of his Mormonism, he tried to rally them all under his flag against the evils of, in his words, “the religion of secularism.” Basically, he wanted to turn nontheists into a scapegoat, a common enemy, in essence saying, “I’m like you other Christians. Let me lead you against those terrible atheists.”

It was a demagogic maneuver worthy of any Jew-hating Brown Shirt in 1930’s Germany. (My apologies for the Godwin.)  I watched that speech live and I felt directly threatened. I have seen nothing to suggest that he has changed his willingness to ruthlessly exploit religious paranoia against non-believers. I will never ever trust the Prince of Panderers.

He lost it because it was a tobacco lobby state that had gone red (current Senators: Rand Paul and Lamar Alexander…) in the 8 years he was VP of the whole country.

No, it is NOT okay for states to decide what rights people have.  States’ rights means the ability to make their own laws and regulate their own business practice without infringing upon rights afforded to everyone.

I agree.  Sebelius is his appointee, and she made the wrong call.

with respect, I am so curious about ‘atheist Republican’.  Can you explain, please?

Or are you just not going to vote, because the lesser of two evils is still evil?

I’m going to vote but not for Obama or the Republican candidate – I’m going to write someone in.

I’m hoping Gary Johnson doesn’t run as a Libertarian.  I think his best strategy is to spend an do just enough this cycle to keep himself in the public eye and then campaign seriously the next one where he can be the guy who shares all Ron Paul’s good ideas and none of the Jesus stuff. 

The two party system in an inevitable consequence of having a district based/plurality winner system.  This is why I’ve maintained for years that one of the houses should be party proportional.

Knowing in his heart is not acceptable. People “know in their heart” all the time and are consistently wrong. Evidence and trial separate those who are innocent in every way except “in our hearts” from those who are real criminals.

Divine Right? It’s more like a well funded and well managed PR campaign and public vote that decides who gets into office.

But just as with his opposition to gay marriage, it’s not the science and rights that matter, but the less evilness in his heart.

Please vote. 

It may be that the lesser of two evils is still an evil.   But do you really want to forfeit your say in choosing the evil that you’re going to be stuck with?

I too am an atheist republican. I am with you that if Romney gets the nod, i will have no problem voting for him. Although, no matter who wins, i will still vote against Obama. This 4 year experiment has shown that we need somone in office with experience and intelligence. Getting America’s economy has got to be the priority. Not their penchant for talking to their imaginary friends.

that NDAA allows indefinite detention of American citizens without trial and that Obama has ordered the assassination of an American citizen. That’s true.

And thus you’re going to help either Romney, Gingrich or some other knuckledragger. Wake up people: American democracy is messy, and voting for a third party only makes your opponent’s position stronger. You are being naive and childish.

I’m all for Ron Paul…but I would really like some solid evidence not to vote for him…to me he makes the most sense…all the others are sell-outs and will do more bad than good for this country.  Some appropriate resources and what exactly is wrong with him…not propaganda.  Of course every candidate has something you don’t agree with…I would really like to know if his faults outweigh his benefits.  I personally give a rat’s ass what religious affliation they are, I want to know that things will happen to better our country. 

Actually, that isn’t correct. Small L libertarianism, at its core, is the idea that each person is the owner of himself and has the inherent right to conduct himself as he sees fit, to profit from his actions as best he can, so long as he doesn’t infringe on another person’s rights to the same things. Therefore, any action that violates another person’s right to control his own life, is a violation of libertarianism.

It’s about being responsible and conservative with your resources and taking care of yourself as opposed to letting the government do everything for you and give your money to everybody else.

BTW, even I’m not really sure how much I’m kidding there.

I’d rather see Obama go up against one of the slightly more reasonable Republicans, like Huntsman or Gary Johnson (who we rarely hear about in the media), than one of that more wacky fundie types like Bachmann or Perry. Mainly because I’d rather not risk seeing someone like Bachmann or Perry win the election. Remember, Bush managed to get legitimately elected President one of the two terms he served.

I agree.  If you don’t vote, politically you don’t exist.  No politician or political party is going to care about a group of people that don’t vote.    If there is a perception that secularists are disenchanted and don’t vote, then all politicians and parties will use secularists as scapegoats for all the world’s problems.  Only by voicing your political opinions in the voting booth can politicians and the political parties take notice of secular issues.  Politics has always been, is about now, and will be about in the future of choosing the lesser of two evils.  Make your lesser evil choice and vote. 

I’m sorry but there are two issues here. One is that while normal religion is nuts, Mormonism is nuts on steroids. It is just shy of Scientology. If a mind finds that acceptable, why in the world wouldn’t you have concerns for their critical thinking skills and second, the only one close to being so shameless at having no core principles is Gingrich. How could you possibly have confidence that he would be who you want and think he is with a record like mittvmitt.com? 

Huntsman seems to be the most honest of the bunch (while still having the Underwear Ski God issues – not to mention the Mormon bigotry and hypocrisy in the Boy Scouts and Adoption) and it’s shameful Johnson has been terminated by the party while they promote truly egregious people like Cain, Bachmann, Perry and Santorum.

How about the fact that Ron Paul’s newsletters in the late 80s/early 90s where full of racist and homophobic views for years, yet he now claims he never read what was published in his own newsletters, and has no clue who wrote them? When he was originally confronted with the crap in his own newsletters he said the quotes were out of context, but never denied writing them. A decade later he is now claiming that he never knew what was written and his ‘advisors’ when this was originally uncovered wouldn’t let him deny writing them. To me that disqualifies Paul, he is either the dumbest politician ever, letting people he doesn’t know write bigoted stuff  and publishing it under his own name and letting his advisors tell him to take the blame for being a racist, or else he IS a racist and homophobic liar.

Or how about the fact that Paul considers the Civil Rights Act unconditional?

By Paul being” extremely conscious of states’ rights issues” I assume you mean that he thinks it is fine for states to violate the civil rights of minorities? Paul even said the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional and doesn’t seem to accept that the 16th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states. And his newsletter, before he got really famous, was full of racist and homophobic views (although he now says he has no clue who wrote and what was written in the newsletter that he himself published under his own name). 

Yeah, except Republicans are much more likely to be against civil rights and for imposing intelligent design and Christianity on all citizens. Look at the Republican-created, big government Patriot Act, or the Republicans trying to cram an amendment in the defense authorization bill that would allow the president to decide to detain US citizens for the rest of their lives, without recourse, if he claimed they were terroritsts. Thats not small government and taking care of yourself. 

The only Republicans who have been against torture and unnecessary foreign wars have been Paul and Huntsman. Sorry, but Democrats may be the big government party for helping the down and out, but Republicans are the big government party of starting wars and denying basic human rights to citizens (especially atheists, gays, and the poor). 

If Huntsman was it it more for the money, power, and getting votes than anything else than it sure isn’t working. I have a feeling he’d probably be taking more popular positions in his own party if that was the case.

Ah, so making sure that you get yours, and not allowing for your funds to help anybody but yourself? Doesn’t sound selfish at all.

See, I’m proud to be an atheist liberal because I want my taxpayer dollars to help those less fortunate than myself. I want the government, which was set up by us, for us, to help its people in their time of need. It’s not about setting up a welfare nanny system; it’s about utilizing resources in a way that will benefit all of society equally.

I’m going, of course, on the assumption that you are against systems such as welfare, based on your “[not] letting the government do everything for you” comment.

Sure (at least, I can speak to about myself).  When it comes time to vote, like anyone else I look at my policy preferences and weigh how important they are relative to one another.  If that calculus results in a Republican candidate more closely aligning with my preferences, I vote for them.

The implied question always seems to be: “How are you not a liberal atheist like the rest of us?”  Atheism doesn’t mean much to me beyond that I don’t believe in a god.  It may for you, but it doesn’t for me, also import ideas about good governance, the relationship between the rich and the poor vis-a-vis the State, international relations, etc.

It’s also entirely reasonable for someone to be an atheist and not subscribe to the prevailing atheist views toward the Establishment clause, for instance.  I think religion is a crock.  I’m also mindful of centuries of legal and philosophical thinking that might weigh against a knee-jerk prohibition of religion in the public square.

In short, I’m an atheist because I don’t believe God exists.  What that has to do with my political beliefs amounts to very little.

The good news about Ron Paul is that he’s extremely conscious of states’ rights issues (did I put the apostrophe in the right place there?)

Where you put the apostrophe is less important that where you think rights belong. Individuals should have rights, not states.

Honestly, the “scientific based regulations and legislations” should be issue #1 in my opinion.  And the fact that so many candidates do so badly on that measure is horrifying(but accurate).

If you don’t intend to make fact based policy based on the reality of our situation, you should under no circumstances be given political power.  It’s just that simple.

If you think the Democratic party isn’t progressive enough, then support more progressive candidates in the primary elections. But handing the election over to the conservatives so that the Democrats will “learn their lesson” is a losing strategy.

Ron Paul reached the non-interventionist in me.  Then I listened to him some more.  His idea of Liberty is a bastardized idea.  He thinks that property rights would prevent big corporations from destroying great swaths of land and water.  He is incredibly naive in thinking this way.  Fact is giant corporations have all the funds available to them to purchase all the land they’d like to pollute on.  If dumping their toxic wastes in their own purchased backyard will raise their profits, they will do it.  Earth be damned.  Any person who believes that a woman does not have the right to her own body and choosing whether to be an incubator or not is not a libertarian.  He doesn’t believe in climate change.  He doesn’t believe evolution is real.  And he doesn’t believe that the first amendment meant that the US government may not endorse Christianity as the state’s preferred religion.  He gets it right on a few things, but that does not change the fact that Ron’s idea of unfettered liberty is a liberty that WILL allow those with the biggest boots to stand on the necks of those beneath them in acting on their freedoms.  “Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows.” (Isaiah Berlin) That’s exactly the kind of liberty that Ron Paul espouses, though he doesn’t see it — he envisions a Utopian kind of liberty.  Problem is, we don’t live in Utopia. I’m not so naive as to believe eliminating laws that make it illegal for stores to post “no blacks allowed” signs would be just fine because society would create such a backlash that those stores would suffer.  Ron Paul IS that naive.   He’s not living in the same reality as you or I.  

By looking at his website, I really like this Rocky Anderson. Thanks for sharing.

That might work there.  It won’t in purple states.

How??? That’s the problem. We are beholden to this bullshit two party system that is CORRUPT BEYOND BELIEF. Nothing can ever change if it stays this way

So, I’m assuming there are ZERO “small L” libertarians???

Here you go, Paul is a libertarian, which pretty much means he is a Social Darwinist. 

Sure there is much overlap in the two,most social darwinist are liberation, but at the end of the day, even the libertarians who do not think they are bettering the gene pool still would let poor people die in the street because they are poor. So it’s just the same thing by another name.

I just thought of something else. You wrote, “If they are using it because they were harmed, then we need to be able to step in and help them through a rough time.” I think you mean that it should be available over the counter for rape victims, but I’m not 100% clear how that’s supposed to work. Do they have to prove to a pharmacist that they were raped?

Theist here- sorry to anyone I might offend.  Please believe that I’m genuinely seeking wisdom here over these issues:

     Why is science and evolution such an important issue?  I understand the others, but why is science and evolution considered a main tenent or whatever?

((Sincere, genuine question which admits my ignorance and seeks wisdom))  Thx for giving me your time of day. 🙂

Signing statements are only in effect during the duration of his Presidency. So this just makes it easier for the next President to indefinitely detain prisoners.

And the man he ordered assassinated without trial is dead.

I’ve done so.  And I’ve seen what happens – the DNC takes national money to force those progressives off the ticket.

Obama, Clinton and the DNC went against local Democrats and spent millions fighting to keep corporate Democrats like Lincoln and Bennett on the ballot in 2008.

The bigger problem is that Democrats have bought into this continuous campaign process where every single governing decision is viewed as subordinate to getting the candidate reelected. 

There can be no protest of anything Obama does because the Republicans could be worse. And that means that no matter how corrupt or harmful an action is,  it can’t be criticized or amended. Thus we have a system where both parties race to see who can be the most corrupt and self-enriching.

The best reason to vote is down-ticket elections, where there is a hope of influencing candidates. Also, referendums.

Lesser-of-two-evilism is like deciding to drive off a cliff at 30 miles an hour instead of 100 miles an hour. You’re dead either way, but in the first case you have more time to build up the tension and kid yourself.

We’ve had changes in our parties in the past (before there were Republicans, there were Democrats and Whigs).  And corrupted “centrist” parties that no longer represent their people have been supplanted elsewhere. But to have that happen, you have to get over the belief that the marginal difference between 2 parties will change everything in 2 years.

The only way to get there is to think beyond 2 years. Voting reform is key and neither party will support it. That means supporting third parties now and not waiting for a savior to come along.

Aside from easily offshored low-tech industries, most industries depend on some degree of scientific thinking. The attack on teaching science (the process of asking a question, doing background research, constructing a hypothesis, testing your hypothesis by doing an experiment, analyzing your data and drawing a conclusion based on the data) as a source of knowledge in the defense of one particular faith’s origin myth is an attack on all scientific and technological development.

It’s an attack on education, discovery, technology, progress and everyone who isn’t a believer in the Abrahamic creation myths.

Also, the more reasonable the Republican, the less Obama can do things like sign laws calling for indefinite detention of American citizens without trial or approve oil pipelines over essential aquifiers.

If the “greater evil” isn’t so crazy, that limits how much the “lesser evil” can get away with.

Evolution, and the age of the earth, and even human effect on global warming are established and accepted areas of science.  Denying them is kind of like denying the heliocentric model of the solar system.

I don’t think an extramarital affairs in and of itself says anything about someone’s ability to be president, other than perhaps their ability to keep a promise I suppose.  What to me matters more is the lying that goes with it.  I don’t really care who Clinton had sex with.  What really reflects badly to me was his bald face lying about it.

I don’t care if a president knows about genetic drift and mitochondrial DNA, but I want one who has enough of a B.S. meter to understand that “chimps are more closely related to humans than gorillas” is a fact.  One of many that supports the theory of evolution.

(asking a genuine question should never be considered an offense)

science is fundamental to all problem solving & evolution is an exemplary understanding of nature while faith solves nothing & creationism is a lie … does that explain if for ya?
 

Drew you are wrong about ‘these laws.” … American citizens have been murdered by direct Obomba orders. … Posse Comitatus laws have been  defacto repealed by allowing for the first time since 1870’s troops  in our nation acting against people inside our borders …. such excuses can not justify the genocide against Native Americans or friends of Palestinians likely to be detained by any base commander

keep speaking truth to evil power in bitter ironic snipes at tweedle die tweedle dumb voters Kate!  good job as we only need wake up a few more million from their theocrat slumbers to fight for our godless US Constitution 843-926-1750 Larry Carter Center USN’71-’73

what kind of dope are you smoking Kevin?  Why keep making excuses for the boy Bush in blackface of the White House ?  Obomba is a war criminal & polluter’s enabler & has stolen more trillions in 3 years that the Bush Crime Family dared steal in 8

Isn’t Gary the gayfriendly billionaire from CA ?  He is getting more censorship than Buddy Roemer…. running the country is like running for prez, gotta prove you can run a big campaign before you can be considered seriously able to fill 50 thousand slots in Executive & Congressional staffer jobs …. either we are ready to rule or the military will round up enough of us to scare or dope the rest of us

only if the election were held today would I vote for DR Jill…. who knows what may happen between tomorrow & November?

BAND AID is not the solution to massive bleeding, only a Constitutional Amendment banning corporations as persons limiting business to only business not bribery or writing laws or stacking our courts against real people …. until millions of people become political scientists, we will be ruled by crooks, millions of people pray to the flag UNDER god instead of reading the Constitution where no single word god appears …. are Atheists willing to give up sitcoms & sports to defeat fascist corporate rule?  Are Amerikans too stupidly religious to run their own country instead of let it be run by theocrats?

Denis, your incompetent statement is how boy Bush stole the White House, it is racist or idiotic to pretend thousands of African Americans denied their votes is less important that a few hundred hanging chads …. it always makes me sick to read more lies against Nader when Gore himself had the job to follow the Constitution & call the roll of 49 legal states as the Constitution requires, Florida violated the law signed by so called Prez Hayes to prevent fraudulent voting in Florida that got him selected by a small committee of Congress … Hayes also  bribed the South to let him become Prez by ending RECONSTRUCTION & pulled out troops protecting former slaves …. the KKK exploded in membership & so did lynchings escalate …. people are so deadly stupid not to study history, thus the Posse Comitatus law was just defacto repealed this month after preventing US Troops inside America since Hayes 843-926-1750 Larry Carter Center USN’71-’73

Obomber spent millions to win the Dem Primary in SC then immediately left the state … SC is so redneck & racist, it is a wonder that McSamePalin only got 57 % when gays were denied any legal rights by 78% in 2006 …. not a swing state? yeah!!! If I had millions to feed thousands of volunteers & drive them around all 46 counties knocking on doors & calling on the phone & stuffing envelopes HUMANITY might return to election day IF WE HAD REAL BALLOTS not cyber voting 843-926-1750 LARRY CARTER CENTER fought for Green Tom Clements for US Senate here instead of Nazi James DeMint

I’m impressed with several posters here.  Most Atheists are at least thinking, asking questions about this & past elections…. but this scorecard remains the problem, not listing all the candidates is enabling a corrupt duopoly

Stop this fear-mongering.

Do you think he’ll be successful?

Atheists are fucking *obsessed* with “the Jesus stuff”.

I’m an atheist libertarian, not a libertarian atheist, so I don’t give two craps about Ron Paul’s religious beliefs. It doesn’t even register on the scale of what’s important. I think it’s excellent for the libertarian movement to have Ron Paul competing for the Republican nomination, and Gary Johnson running as the Libertarian candidate (and keeping the party away from one of Wayne Allen Root’s cronies).

(I also disagree with several of the marks on the scorecard, like getting an ‘F’ for Attitude towards Nontheists. I’ve never once suspected Dr. Paul of religious intolerance.)

Well said Madfoot.

The essence of libertarianism is tolerance and consent. It’s about letting individuals do what they want to do, provided they don’t use force or fraud against others.

It does mean that people will do things and say things that others don’t like. It also means is that the others can try to stop them using non-violent non-forceful methods, but can’t use proxy physical force (the government) to make people change their ways.

There’s a difference between a government stopping people from physically harming and/or defrauding others and a government that stops people from being mean.

As far as Obama goes, believing that Obama will change into what people thought he would be is kind of like believing a wife-beater will change his ways. It’s not likely.

At this point, given what exists, I’d like to see Paul as the Republican presidential candidate with Gary Johnson as his VP candidate. If Paul isn’t nominated and Johnson is (by the LP), then Johnson has my vote.

Having recently read part of “The Revolution” by Ron Paul, I would give him much better than an F on attitude toward non theists.

Page 4:  He’s listing the sort of people in his diverse coalition: “anti-war activists, homeschoolers, religious conservatives, freethinkers.”  Yes, listing us is a very small gesture, but it’s more than most of the GOP field would do.

Page 7: He quotes Bertrand Russell.  “In all affairs, it’s a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.”  Paul goes on to qualify it with, “I’m not in the habit of Bertrand, but when in American history has his sentiment been more true?”

I’m not saying you should vote for Ron Paul.  (I’m voting for Huntsman.)  I’m just saying he deserves better than an F.

This needs updated. Ron Paul says he does not believe in separation of church and state and says the republic won’t work without religion while Romney said he firmly believes in separation of church and state. Here they both receive the grade of C where Paul should get an F and Romney should get an A or B.