Who's the alternative - that will actually have a half assed chance?
I'd rather him then two Wyden's or worse!
I don't know of any ... yet. What I do know, though is your assumption, also known as the "conventional wisdom" regarding elections in Oregon is flawed.
The "conventional wisdom" would have us believe that the only way for a Republican to win an election in Oregon is for that Republican to be a pseudo-democrat. Yet I have yet to see that theory actually tested. When was the last time we had the option of voting for a bona fide conservative Republican in Oregon?
These days, elections are all about which side can get a larger percentage of their voters off their butts and into the polls. When conservatives are given the option of a really liberal democrat versus a liberal titular republican, they don't bother voting. What would be the point?
Want proof? Just look at the last gubernatorial elections. We didn't lose to the democrats, we lost to the libertarians. Why? Because the RINO candidates offered us a tax and spend economic plan for Oregon that was little different from the liberal tax and spend democrats. The Libertarians intelligently set aside some of the loopier aspects of their party platform and actually proposed a sane and fiscally conservative limited spending budget. When our elected RINOs in Salem were legislating for "greater prosperity through greater taxation", it was the libertarian party that actually pushed through the ballot initiatives to nip that tax increase in the bud.
Even worse, just look at the candidates themselves. Kulongoski is anti-Second Ammendment, but then, being a democrat, he see the entire constitution as an impediment instead of as law. Tom Cox, the Libertarian, is pro-gun by definition. The Libertarian party, despite being loopy on many issues, is very definitely pro-Second Ammendment. And Mannix, the so called "Republican Candidate", and now (sadly) the head of the Republican Party in Oregon? Away from photo ops and press conferences, he's a full on gun-grabber (who then lies about it) that the democrats would be otherwise proud of (didn't he used to be a democrat himself?). That rat bastard himself wrote HB 2535 (which failed in the senate - thank God). There's no way I, and many other conservative voters, could stomach voting for Mannix. And so the Libertarians garnered enough conservative voters who were glad to finally have a fiscally conservative candidate for a change that the RINOs lost.
Need another example? Let's look federal this time. Bush won reelection because he was a tag along ticket to the issue of gay marriage. Enough conservatives who were indifferent about Bush felt strongly enough about gay marriage to go to the polls, and while they were there, they also voted for Bush. This is a case of a truly conservative issue garnering the votes that were shared in by a slightly less liberal than the alternative candidate.
No matter who runs on the Republican ticket, the democrats will tar and feather them as a hateful baby killing racist reactionary thug (in psychologic terms, I believe that's called "projection"). Every Oregon Republican is just a puppet of Lon Mabon in their eyes. We could have Karl Marx running on the Republican ticket and the democrats would call him a greedy capitalist pig. So why not actually have a bona-fide conservative (instead of another liberal-lite-weight) run for a change?
I'd rather him then two Wyden's or worse!
Funny you should say that. Care to give me an example where Smith's vote has differed from Wyden's on any non-superficial issue?