Who could be the next Ted Cruz? Top 10 tea party primaries of 2014.

Who are the tea party movement's top candidates in 2014, and what are their prospects? Here's a look:

5. Nebraska: Ben Sasse vs. Shane Osborn vs. Sid Dinsdale

Nati Hanik/AP/File
GOP Senate candidates Shane Osborn (r.) and Ben Sasse leave the stage after a debate in Omaha, Neb., last month. Mr. Sasse, the pick of national tea party groups, won the primary.

[Updated May 14]  Ben Sasse, a university president and former Bush administration official, won the May 13 GOP Senate primary with 49 percent of the vote. Banker Sid Dinsdale came in second with 22 percent, and former state Treasurer Shane Osborn got 21 percent. Mr. Sasse is expected to win the general election easily in November.

Here’s the background: The primary for retiring Republican Sen. Mike Johanns’s seat had been a nasty affair, with the top two candidates – and outside groups spending on their behalf – duking it out on the airwaves. That created an opening for a third candidate, Mr. Dinsdale, to rise in the polls.

The favorite of the national tea party establishment was Mr. Sasse, president of Midland University in Fremont, Neb. He was endorsed by Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Mike Lee of Utah, as well as former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Washington-based conservative groups FreedomWorks, Club for Growth, and the Senate Conservatives Fund also supported him. In late March, FreedomWorks took the unprecedented step of switching its endorsement from Shane Osborn, a former state treasurer, to Sasse. FreedomWorks head Matt Kibbe said that Mr. Osborn had “formed allegiances with Mitch McConnell and the K Street lobbying class” that signaled a “progression away from the grass roots.”

Osborn is a decorated former Navy pilot who was detained in China for 12 days in 2001. Despite Sasse’s national tea party support, back in Nebraska many local tea party activists were with Osborn. In an April 8 letter, 52 Nebraska tea partyers objected to the involvement of outside groups in their Senate primary.

“We are disappointed with the way DC organizations are telling Nebraskans what the Tea Party in Nebraska thinks,” the letter said.

5 of 10

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.