Will the GOP Wake Up and Smell the Tea?

American Thinker ^ | May 13, 2010 | J.R. Dunn

[neverdem]

It's a painful thing to imagine Robert Bennett over the past few days, sitting alone in a darkened room, staring off into space wondering what hit him and whistling Nick Cave's "There She Goes My Beautiful World" over and over again.

It happened quickly. Events in politics aren't supposed to happen that quickly. It came out of nowhere, with next to no warning at all. Even a few weeks ago, there was little sign that Bennett was in trouble. Then the spirit of 2010 suddenly rose out the darkness and took him down.

It also wrong-footed the chattering classes, most of whom have echoed that master of analysis David Brooks in sputtering, "It's an outrage." From a certain point of view, perhaps so. But outrages don't occur for no reason. After Bennett, three things can be said with certainty:

That the Tea Party movement is in no way a partisan phenomenon.

That it is not a minor event, one of those weird little upheavals common to democracies such as the Perotista uproar of the 90s, which appeared, wreaked havoc, and then vanished leaving no measurable effect on national politics.

That it is not simply a revolt. As the Duc de la Rochefoucauld explained to Louis XVI one fine July morning: "No sire, it is a revolution."

The Tea Parties were well named. Like the Committees of Correspondence of the 1770s, they are the leading edge of a revolutionary change in American politics, one that has been gathering force for decades. This is the third wave foreshadowed by the Reagan Revolution of the 80s and the Gingrich Revolution of the mid-90s. It is a widespread national revolt against managerialism, administrative government, liberal paternalism, and the policies they embody. 

The Reagan and Gingrich revolutions were aimed at the same targets. Other similarities exist as well, but the differences are just as profound. The previous movements were limited by party; as the Bennett ambush reveals, this one is not. They were doctrinal in basis; this one based almost purely on principle. They were only partially successful. And this one...?

Neither party yet grasps any of this. The Dems are in the position of a chicken in the middle of a thruway gazing bladly at an oncoming eighteen-wheeler. The only question is who will brush the feathers off the road? 

The Republican stance is more complicated and problematic. The GOP is eagerly counting up the possible gains in the midterms (the number, according to Jim Geraghty,   is now up to 90 seats in the House). It appears that the GOP is set to take over the House and make dramatic gains in the Senate. This is all well and good, but the problem with the Republicans is that, as usual, they are giving little or no thought as to what such a victory will be all about.

The '94 revolution failed in large part due to the flakiness of its leader ("The mayor of Sominex City," as Dame L. put it last weekend.) but also thanks to institutional pressures inherent in both the GOP and Congress itself. Within a short time, the fire kindled in '94 was extinguished amid the damp chill of business as usual and a pathetically limited post-Gingrich leadership, to be replaced by seat-counting, earmark-trading, and open corruption. This led to 2006, to 2008, and, in due time, to the Tea Parties.

The question arises as to whether the GOP understands this course of events. The signs are not encouraging. Shortly after the passage of ObamaCare, Sen. John Cornyn, one of the party's old bulls, announced that the party would make no effort to repeal the bill.  He was echoed by Sen. Bob Corker and several House members -- a nonentity named Richard Burr, and one or two others whose names slip my mind. No clear rationale was given, and none was required. ObamaCare will be embraced by the GOP mainstream because it represents a return to the status quo ante 2006 --` it represents a mammoth opportunity to practice what George Washington Plunkitt called "honest graft": trading earmarks, placing US HealthCare installations in your district, and, not the least, guaranteeing that your supporters get to jump the line after rationing starts.

Voters? They get to do what they're told.

But of course, they're not doing what they're told. And since Cornyn is insulated from the voters' wrath this year, they instead turned the phaser banks on poor Robert Bennett.

It can be argued that Bennett didn't deserve to be let down so harshly, that he was a conservative of sorts, and that we shouldn't batter members of our own team. All good points. But none of them will play this year. Because, quite apart from all that, Bennett had sold out, and more publicly and completely than many. There was the broken pledge not to serve more than two terms, the vote for TARP (some form of bailout might have been necessary, but not that one), and his "bipartisan" health-care bill, of which the best that can be said is the fact that it went nowhere. Bennett was much the same as Bob Dole, and George H.W. Bush, and today's Newt Gingrich: a member of the managerial elite. Somebody who, apart from the rhetoric, is simply another cog in the legislative machinery (or like Newt, would like to be once again). Arguing that Bennett was no worse than anyone else was not going to save him, not in 2010. And it won't save anyone else either.

Will the Republicans get the message? That remains to be seen. It often appears that Republicans are not a message-getting species. 2006... 2008... ObamaCare... the dominos fall and make no impression in the elephantine mind. They still believe they can continue playing the numbers game, rewarding each other with earmarks, making deals across the aisle, and playing both ends against the middle. The voters will never notice.

Well, the Utah voters sure noticed.

To avoid Robert Bennett's fate, the GOP must do things. ObamaCare must either be repealed or emasculated (if a veto-proof majority cannot be put together). The illegals problem must be solved firmly and quickly. The southern border must be secured before it explodes. The plague of PC that has overwhelmed political decision-making in this country since the first Bush administration must be ended. These only comprise a start. What people are demanding is a rollback. They will get it, or the politicians who stand in their way will wind up on the same ashheap as Bennett.

It happens that what the people are calling for matches the platform of the GOP almost point for point. The Republicans can prevail simply by being themselves, living up to their own standards and rhetoric. But we should never underestimate the Republican capacity for blowing a two-foot putt. Remember Dede Scozzafava, for one example. 

If the Republicans drop the ball this time, if they toss aside their principles, break their promises, lose themselves in deals, Bennett's downfall will expand to the level of massacre. 2012 will become the year of the third party, a serious third party, not the vanity productions of Ross Perot, but something we haven't seen since 1912. And more than likely led by a populist crank of the Ron Paul variety. The last such upsurge by the Perotistas gave us Bill Clinton. And the next one...?

The GOP is being given that rarity in politics, a second chance. There will not be a third. Learn the lesson of Robert Bennett, or go to the wall.

J.R. Dunn is consulting editor of American Thinker and editor of the forthcoming Military Thinker.

[neverdem]

That the Tea Party movement is in no way a partisan phenomenon.

Mollohan Loses West Virginia Primary After 14 Terms (Update1) Mollohan is a rat.

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

I liked this article...until the last paragraph, where the author goes really quite wrong.

The TP is not a third party. It is an anti-party. It is a silent, mysterious (if you will) force upwelling in Americans. I am very happy with the TP exactly as it is. It does not need a leader, and that is a good thing, because as of this moment, there appears to be no particular leader who looks to be able to unseat or upstage the annointed one. That's perfectly OK by me. It's actually a strength that the TP has no leader at the moment.

It's not about a leader. Not having a leader just means we don't have a guy who gets caught having an affair on his wife. Let the TP exist as a contrast to the deranged cult of personality we have in this asinine sycophancy to 0bama. Let the TP exist simply as a force to be reckoned with, ready to slice through incumbents of either party who think they own their office(s); and happy to confound the pundits who live in the DC bubble, yet believe they have their finger on the pulse of the electorate. Let the TP mesmerize those who have to get a column out every week.

Tea Partiers don't need rallies. No TP'er needs to be told what the TP stands for. Vulnerable politicians may or may not be interested in what the TP stands for. We don't care. If the TP acquired the reputation as a "silent killer" of free-spending, we're-smarter-than-you elitists and acted accordingly I couldn't be happier.

[Leisler]

"The GOP is being given that rarity in politics, a second chance. There will not be a third. Learn the lesson of Robert Bennett, or go to the wall.

Fine by me, but with Chairdolt Steele......

[MARTIAL MONK]

He was echoed by Sen. Bob Corker and several House members -- a nonentity named Richard Burr, and one or two others whose names slip my mind.

Was this a slur or a stupid?

[gunsequalfreedom]

Will the GOP Wake Up and Smell the Tea?

The answer is no.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

To avoid Robert Bennett's fate, the GOP must do things. ObamaCare must either be repealed or emasculated (if a veto-proof majority cannot be put together). The illegals problem must be solved firmly and quickly. The southern border must be secured before it explodes. The plague of PC that has overwhelmed political decision-making in this country since the first Bush administration must be ended. These only comprise a start. What people are demanding is a rollback. They will get it, or the politicians who stand in their way will wind up on the same ashheap as Bennett.

It happens that what the people are calling for matches the platform of the GOP almost point for point. The Republicans can prevail simply by being themselves who they claim to be, living up to their own standards and rhetoric. But we should never underestimate the Republican capacity for blowing a two-foot putt. Remember Dede Scozzafava, for one example.

If the Republicans drop the ball this time, if they toss aside their principles, break their promises, lose themselves in deals, Bennett's downfall will expand to the level of massacre. 2012 will become the year of the third party, a serious third party, not the vanity productions of Ross Perot, but something we haven't seen since 1912.

I've been saying that 2012 will be the centennial of the last time the Republicans failed, not only to win but even to place in a presidential election - and if they nominate another John ("If Obama wins he'll make a good president") McCain, they can expect to "celebrate" that centennial with a repeat of that performance.

[donna]

If the TP acquired the reputation as a "silent killer" of free-spending, we're-smarter-than-you elitists and acted accordingly I couldn't be happier.

Heh heh heh.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I liked this article...until the last paragraph, where the author goes really quite wrong.

Ping to my #6.

The TP is not a third party.

You are correct to say that - but that is precisely what Dunn is saying - "The TP is not a third party" - yet.

But if the Republican Party insists on selling the 'sizzle' of limited government and delivering the 'steak' of pork barrel politics, they will leave a gaping void which the TP will fill.

[des]

As a GOP that respects the Tea Party, I wish the minority leader would stfu.

[nathanbedford]

[Here is a post from the time just before the gubernatorial victories in Virginia and New Jersey which considers the nature of third-party movements which I think anticipates much of this discussion especially where it concerns governance after the election]:

Returning from church, "silent" Calvin Coolidge was asked by the press, "what was the sermon about?" "Sin," he answered, offering no more. "What did the preacher say about sin?" pursued the press. "He was against it."

The burlesque in the 23rd Congressional District in New York State demonstrates beyond peradventure that the elites running the Republican Party are hostile to the interests of the conservative movement. It is also clear that unless the Republican Party can accommodate the Tea Party movement it will fail in the upcoming elections.

Reform now!

Judging from the intermeddling of the Washington elite on behalf of Charlie Crist in Florida together with their indefensible endorsement and financing of Rino, Dede Scozzafava in 23rd District of New York, it is probable that the establishment elites in the National Republican Party are covertly hostile or passively aggressive toward the Tea Party Movement. Possibly, these elites fear the Tea Party movement constitutes a threat to their personal power. Possibly, they fear the movement because it is unaccountable and likely to become a loose cannon. Indeed, is not inconceivable that the apparatchiks of the Republican Party would have secretly preferred a loss to Democrats than a win by the Tea Party Movement.

But let us not assay virtue exclusively on one side and only evil on the other.

At this point the Tea Party movement is a protest movement and not a reform movement. It is clear about what it is against. It is against taxing and spending, taxing and borrowing, borrowing and spending. It is also clear that it wants to throw out representatives of either party who trespass on these three taboos. But what does the movement stand for ?

The Tea Party Movement has no plank on whether to cut Social Security as a means to balance the budget because it has no platform and the movement has no platform because it is not a party. Would The Movement raise taxes to maintain Social Security at current levels and standards? Would it tax to maintain our national defense capabilities at their current levels? Would it tax to pay down the debt? We do not know and, revealingly, we do not even know whom to ask.

Clearly, The Movement as a general principle would prefer to reduce spending rather than raise taxes. Would the movement choose to reduce spending on Social Security rather than raise taxes? Would it cut Medicare to reduce taxes? To balance the budget?

These are questions that the Tea Party movement has not addressed and professional politicians, like those despised Republican elites in Washington for example, know that the trajectory for entitlements like Social Security and Medicare are such that if they are not reduced they will ultimately consume the entire federal budget and then bankrupt the country. Even Barack Obama himself has acknowledged this and, in an Orwellian triumph of illogic, has exploited this reality to justify spending more on health care reform to keep the already bankrupt health-care system from bankrupting the whole country. But it doesn't matter who says it, there simply is not enough room in discretionary spending, even if it we eliminated all military spending, to get the budget under control. Whenever you hear a politician say that he will solve a fiscal problem by curbing waste fraud and abuse, use one hand to cover your wallet and the other to cover your genitals because you will need to protect both.

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves,

Why does the professional politician tell us that he will resolve these massive shortfalls by eliminating waste fraud and abuse? Because that's how he got to be a professional politician in the first place and that's how he remains a professional politician. The unattractive truth about us as voters is that we seek out those politicians who will pander to our eagerness to dodge reality. One needs look no further than the neck and neck race in New Jersey where Corzine is able to remain a viable candidate for just that reason. The very strength of the Tea Party movement is that there is no one in charge who must answer to this conundrum: Do we tax the people more or cut grandma's Social Security and deny her end-of-life Medicare treatment? The closer the Tea Party Movement gets to political power the less easy it will be for it to dodge these kinds of questions and the more political power will elude it. The more it answers these questions, the more it will fracture. That is simply the lifecycle for all political movements.

So long as the Tea Party movement remains in the "protest" stage, it is playing offense not defense, and it need not answer these questions. One might note that the Obama presidential campaign succeeded in riding protest right into the Oval Office without ever once being forced into the "reform" mode. It succeeded in this by exploiting media bias and presuming on the generous nature of the American people who wanted to settle the problem of race in America once and for all. Director of White House Communications, Anita Dunn, has recently revealed in a taped interview how the Obama campaign contrived through artifice to avoid confronting these hard questions. But in a larger sense, while we conservatives complained that Obama was an "empty suit," Obama confounded us with the race card. This was a classic case of a politician succeeding by misdirection. He did not say, "vote for me or you are a racist" far from it, as an accomplished prestidigitator he was more subtle, "vote for me" he intimated, "and receive an indulgence for your original American sin of racism." He chanted "reform" ("change") but it was only through inadvertence, as occurred by chance with Joe The Plumber, or when he thought the microphones were off when describing the "bitter clingers" of Pennsylvania to San Francisco fat cats, that Obama ever revealed the real radical nature of that "change."

Indulgences free for the taking, just pull the lever marked "Obama"

Axelrod contrived a political campaign of genius. Barack Obama ran as a white, black man so that he could govern as a pink Manchurian Marxist. If Obama had run as what he was, a radical redistributionist, he would surely have been repudiated at the polls. But his race gave Axelrod the running room to avoid telling the voters the truth and the media provided the downfield blocking. Now the tea party protesters are furious. They are indignant. They sense they have been duped. They have been seduced and betrayed and they are mad as hell. Curiously, they take a good portion of their wrath out against the Republicans whose sins in comparison to Obama's can only be described as venal.

To Govern is to Choose.

Now that the real nature of that reform has become evident, the Tea Party Movement is aroused in full cry, and rightly so. That is not to demean the Tea Party Movement but simply to acknowledge that this protest movement is consistent with the best in the American tradition. It is naïve (as well as heretical) to believe that Obama is the Messiah. Equally it is naïve to believe that any protest movement does not carry with it the seeds of its own corruption which must eventually be reformed in its turn.

Let us return to what we know the Tea Party Movement is against: taxing, spending, and borrowing. We have noted that the movement has not been compelled to say what it is for apart from a return to constitutional principles of our founding fathers. But what are they for when they have to choose between raising taxes or cutting grandma's Social Security check? Between borrowing and cutting grandma's Medicare and denying her a desperately needed hip replacement?

These are difficult decisions and a party might be able to finesse these questions without answering, as Barack Obama succeeded in doing by exploiting his race, but by the next election cycle both the press and the voters will demand answers to these questions.

We conservatives have been betrayed literally left and right. Elected Republicans to our dismay and to the injury of the party and the country have finessed the hard questions by telling us lies; they said, let there be new entitlements, let us borrow, and for God's sake, keep the party going and the Devil take the hindmost. If the Tea Party Movement dodges these questions as the Republicans have done, or lies blatantly about them as the Democrats have done, it will betray its soul and it will be either discarded or reformed in its turn. But if conservatives have been lied to, Independents who largely populate the tea party movement have virtually begged the politicians to lie to them about grandma.

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; … A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; ~Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

If the Tea Party Movement keeps its integrity and answers these questions it will have to make very hard choices. More immediately, it will have to have the architecture in place by which those choices can be made. That means it will need an organization which in turn implies the need for a Constitution to provide for orderly procedures for voting etc. It implies that the movement will have "leaders." These leaders will have to be empowered to speak for the Party . They will in the fullness of time unavoidably become elitists who will seek to retain their positions and enjoy the perquisites of office. They will begin to play the political game. To protect their sinecures they will find ways to dodge hard answers to hard questions. In this they will ultimately become indistinguishable from the elites who inhabit the Republican Party today. Eventually the cry will go out, "Reform The Tea Party Now!"

There will be those who will declare in disgust, "no do not try to reform the Tea Party, it is hopeless, the party is too corrupt and cannot be reformed. It must be replaced with a new party." The ruling Brahmins of the Tea Party will at first ignore the reformers and then denigrate them. Ultimately the reformers will either be absorbed into the establishment Tea Party, as most reform movements of substance historically have been, or the reformers will evaporate away into the American scene, as movements on the fringe have done, or, most unlikely, the reformers will become the dominant party of the right, an unlikely achievement which only the Republicans themselves have managed to do.

This is not to denigrate the Tea Party movement or the reform spirit which animates it. A harbor cannot be cleansed but by the changing tide. It is the reform spirit that contributes to making America what it is. Without it we would all be living in Chicago.

Rather this is to provide perspective, hopefully an adult perspective, which empowers conservatives to shoulder their generational responsibilities like grownups. We conservatives are charged with a generational duty to both past and future generations to pass on the unspeakably precious legacy bequeathed to them by the generation of the Great Depression and World War II; who got it from the immigrants, the Doughboys and the pioneers; who in their turn received it from a great generation that fought the Civil War; who owed it all to the Founding Fathers and the Winter Soldiers.

To be worthy of the name, Conservatives know that we must conserve that which was bequeathed to us in blood and toil, leavened with no small measure of God’s grace, and render the next generation at least as good as we got. We are conservators of a sacred trust. Therefore, what Obama is doing to this legacy is not just ill advised, it is profane .

I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let's face it. It was you, Charley.

Liberal media observers profess to find "Teabaggers" angry and they find that anger to be off-putting. Let them stand in our moccasins and judge us. A mountebank has presumed on the good nature of the American people to secure office by false pretenses where he has revealed himself to be a Manchurian Marxist. This, in the wake of a "compassionate conservative" who was long on compassion and spotty on conservatism. Small wonder tea party people are angry at both sides. We are angry because we know that we will not be able to pass on to our children that which was given to us by grace because we were in effect betrayed and made "bums" by those in whom we have placed trust. Every second the national debt clock ticks and every second our current chance to do something for our kids diminishes. Nevertheless, in the discharge of our responsibilities we must not forget, "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves,

As The Book says, as there is "a time to break down" there is also "a time to build up" and as there is a time to "cast away" there is also a time to "keep."

I say to those who would cavalierly abandon the Republican Party, you will have an obligation to put in its place as good as you took.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Mollohan Loses West Virginia Primary After 14 Terms (Update1) Mollohan is a rat.

Mollohan first won his seat in 1982, replacing his father, Bob.

IOW, a Mollohan has held the seat for a couple of generations . . .

[JaneNC]

Let’s see didn’t Sarah Palin say the tea party supported Juan McCain, and didnt she endorse net neutrality babe, Carly?

It seems to me the lesson of Bennett is not represented in much of the leadership of the GOP and certainly not in Sarah Palin who has a knack for calling rinos conservatives.

[rdb3]

The TP is not a third party. It is an anti-party. It is a silent, mysterious (if you will) force upwelling in Americans. I am very happy with the TP exactly as it is. It does not need a leader, and that is a good thing, because as of this moment, there appears to be no particular leader who looks to be able to unseat or upstage the annointed one. That's perfectly OK by me. It's actually a strength that the TP has no leader at the moment.

Indeed. Let the TP remain as it is.

[riri]

I am out of the country so I missing all the talking heads and, really, only catch my news here on FR.

Does anyone on the right seem to grasp what we are up against? Is anyone calling their congress people and actually stating what we are up against? We very likely are in the beginning stages of a communist revolution. Does any one in congress grasp this??

[Psalm 144]

“Does anyone on the right seem to grasp what we are up against?”

Only Rush, IMO. The enormity of what he is saying often goes over people’s heads though. The spike in sales of guns and ammunition is amazing however. People get it.

“Is anyone calling their congress people and actually stating what we are up against?”

Yes. Those people have been called teabaggers, Nazis and ‘hatemongers’ by Obama, Pelosi and Reid respectively.

“We very likely are in the beginning stages of a communist revolution. Does any one in congress grasp this??”

No. They really are obtuse. Personally, I think we are more in a position of France in 1788 than Russian in 1916. Time will tell.

[Iron Munro]

It happened quickly. Events in politics aren't supposed to happen that quickly. It came out of nowhere, with next to no warning at all.

Actually, this sentiment has been building for 25 years or more and there has been ample warning. The media hasn't paid much attention because they have either been in a swoon over the Clintons and Obamas or have been in foaming-at-the-mouth indignation over the Bushs, father and son.

The media is still blind to the fact that this isn't a partisan uprising so much as it is disgust with our out of control BIG government and the self appointed royalty who have been stealing us blind and running roughshod over the Constitution.
.

[Mobilemitter]

At this point the Tea Party movement is a protest movement and not a reform movement. It is clear about what it is against. It is against taxing and spending, taxing and borrowing, borrowing and spending. It is also clear that it wants to throw out representatives of either party who trespass on these three taboos. But what does the movement stand for ?

I do agree with the overall sentiment of the Tea Party being primarily, at this point, a protest party. It knows full well what it is against because it is trying to save a country riddled with marxist tumors. Calling loudly for the Constitution is the equivalent of crying out for the 'immune' system to be restored. Gee, go figure that one.

As to the particulars of what a healthy Constitutional form of government would look like and how it would address the various weakened and infected members of the body, there are numerous avenues of governmental exercise which would foster strength while yet sustaining personal freedom and liberty. That is the 'nature' of our Constitution and why it is the cornerstone of the protest.

That such exercises and plans have not been employed is due to the fact that the entire system is currently so overwhelmed and so critical that Constitutional life support is the platform needed now.

Those who have taken the time to attend some of the protest and subsequent meetings will tell you that there are pathways which will help us gain our national strength and identity. Like Michael L. George's plan on how to save over 1.5 trillion a year by just simply eliminating waste. Not the entire cure.....just one in what will be many required treatments.(read more at www.strongamericanow.com)

The Tea Party will continue to serve at the voice of the people crying out for this country's Constitutional life to be restored. It is from this platform and this one alone that any long term, real and meaningful health will emerge. Anything short of that will just be another marxist mutation of the cancer which now threatens to utterly consume the Republic.

The Tea Party is an organic movement and as such may change over time. The causes which have birthed it are always with us and can only be held in check with a strong Constituional form of government, not a protest party. The Tea Party (as it is now)understands this. Unlike a political party (or modern elected officials) the Tea Party does not seek to continue on in perpetuity, but rather strive to serve as a Constitutional catalyst, choosing to invest heavily in those founding principles which have through time proven to be the wellspring of American liberty.

The Tea Party patriots are not, like our Congress, delusional. They know just how bad it REALLY is, despite the yellow journalism and our propped up economy.

Sadly, while 'we the people' lay on the table crying out for emergency surgery, our physcians in Congress are busy arguing about how to shut us up so they can sell off our kidneys and buy another coastal villa.

[riri]

Thanks for your insights. I catch Beck occasionally online and he seems to have the dots but even he has connected them yet. Or if he has he hasn't gone as far as to say it, though he comes close.

It is all very frustrating to have our political class, the one's that don't support this, so out of touch and ignorant. Or just plain cowardly.

[rrrod]

The scum running the RNC/GOP are past waking up..they need to be replaced.
Steele, Cornyn, McConnel, Hatch, Burr and on and on.

[ballplayer]

We can start by Firing at Least a Third or more of the 20 Million Govt workers ,Close the Dept of education ,Dept of Energy etc