Specifically, his claims that ESC research has gone nowhere is probably false. That's unfortunate, because in making the claim that ESC's don't work, he has basically given up the moral argument in favor of a utilitarian one. Once you've done that, you've lost the war -- the first successful use of ESCs destroys the opposition.
The reason to oppose ESC research is that it is wrong. If Kellmeyer had left it at that, he'd have been OK. Once you've given that up, it's extremely difficult to get back on track.
Abortion provides a good analogy. The abortion industry thrives, and is primarily defended, on utilitarian grounds (primarily variants on "convenience of the mother"). The moral argument was lost long ago when convenience was placed ahead of a moral principle. These days, the pro-life side typically argues on utilitarian grounds, primarily the consequences that may befall a woman who has an abortion. It's rare that you hear the public argument broken down into a dissection of the moral implications.
"... the first successful use of ESCs destroys the opposition." Well, that's an astonishing bit of hyperbole! Kind of like saying, 'the first person kept from dying by eating fellow survivors of a plane crash on a remote mountain and everyone will start eating their neighbors.' Opposition to ripping the fetal stem cells from embryos doesn't fair or fall based on what the liberals can say about the person debating the issues or upon one man's way of phrasing the argument. Even if one 'trial' has found success, the entire methodology is cannibalism. Does that change when one success is rigged up?
So, point out where he is wrong. Admittedly, I'm not a biologist (just a Ph.D. chemist), but AFAIK, his summation of the "state of the science" is right on target.
As ole Justin Wilson would put it, "I garontee" that if there had been even ONE successful use of embryonic stem cells, it would have been front page news in 3-inch high letters.
Thus far, the pro-ESC arguments are all theoretical, not backed up by facts, whereas the ASC arguments are based on multiple real-world successes.
That's a valid point.
But this article has explained to me why the ESC grant-seekers are seeking government grants. The article exposes their underlying motivation and is a useful addition to the argument contra, although not essential, as you point out.