OK, maybe that title is a bit hard. I'm sure Smith brings a few things to the table, I don't know his body of work very well. But his appearance on Hardball last night flabbergasted me.
link
I found this one amazing on so many levels, and I think Matthews did a good job and it was amusing as Smith refused to be pinned down and kept going back to his strawmen.
Smith doesn't appear to object to fertility clinics, but sticks throughout the interview that extra embryos should be "Adopted" so we don't have to experiment on them or throw them away. Regardless of if the biological parents object, apparently (he dances around this a bit). I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Looking up on wikipedia I found a reference to the "Snowflake Babies" he refers to. The wiki indicates that 134 had been born via this method by 2005, Congresswoman Diana DeGette quoted "between three and four hundred". I live in "Stroller Valley" in San Francisco - home of Steven Fowler and the land of 40 year old mothers. We probably have a few thousand extra embryos per year on my block - my son will probably have to go into therapy because he'll be the only kid on his block who doesn't know where he was conceived.
This isn't a very big leap - so why is Smith showing up on Capital Hill with a bunch of the snowflake kids when any rational person would understand that unless we come up with an army of Octo-moms we can't take those embryos to term - not to mention the fact the expense of performing IVF with 400,000 or so embryos. Answer - either he's an idiot, or he's using sleight of hand to try to put a factual spin on a moral argument. Some people will be convinced we can find homes for all these embryos but that won't happen. Among other things the country couldn't support all those new mouths, and the health care industry has more important fish to fry.
Smith continues with statements about adult stem cells are "better" than embryonic stem cells. He's not a researcher, so he's relying on what he hears from scientists - but given his history it's clear that he will cherry pick the opinions that support his position from the majority of opinions he doesn't like. Hmm... is he a Global Warming denier too?
Matthews asks him a hypothetical question - and he refuses to answer the hypothetical question simply because it's hypothetical. OK, he refused to answer the hypothetical question because he doesn't like the obvious answer to hypothetical question, and he refuses to open that door. Fine, he's a consummate politician - then when Matthews and DeGette point to the prevailing wisdom amongst scientists showing that embryonic stem cells would provide for better results, he stutters around saying "Let me read some quotes - I have lots of quotes". Hah! That will show them!
Fortunately the polls are showing that the public sees through his sham. Matthews calls him on it - using moral arguments and then masking them with scientific arguments. Come on - just make your moral stand and see if it sticks, but don't make up scientific facts to hide your metaphysical beliefs.