Opposing it because the Democrats propose a bill rigged in it's process for acceptance is different than opposing it because you don't want them to be a State if they have a fair vote and express their desire to join.

See Smith's argument #3. Among his other reasons, he opposed it because he deemed Puerto Ricans likely to elect Democratic representatives rather than Republicans.
"If Puerto Rico becomes a state, it is highly likely it will elect two Democratic Senators and four or five Democratic House Members."

I'm actually really disappointed to read what should be an intelligent, respectful discussion, turn into:

I for one entirely embrace the notion of Puerto Rico joining the union more fully. People strive to be free, and reap the benefits of that freedom. Puerto Rico will get the representation to have it's voice more fully heard, and the tax base will be larger for the government, it's a win-win.

That's quite the selective editing... The reason he opposes it is that it's a Democratic power play, the evidence that it's a power play is how they'd likely caucus in addition to the rigged voting process.

“Third, let’s acknowledge that to some this bill is a Democratic power play. The Pew Hispanic Center reported in 2008 that 61% of Puerto Rican registered voters were Democrats, 11% were Republicans and 24% were independents. If Puerto Rico becomes a state, it is highly likely it will elect two Democratic Senators and four or five Democratic House Members.

It's fairly normal for the forum. It helps to get thick skin and leave for a couple weeks when it gets really vicious. No point in wearing out the report button.

Their likely voting patterns aren't the evidence of it being a 'Democratic power play', it's WHY it could be called a 'Democratic power play'. ie. Smith is claiming that the primary reason the Democratic party is supporting statehood is to gain seats and that the same represents a sufficient reason for Republicans to oppose it.
Smith opposes giving Puerto Ricans voting representation in the US government because they would be likely to vote against him.

Selective phrasing again.... I bold faced my addition to make it more accurate ie. Smith is claiming that the primary reason the Democratic party is supporting a rigged process towards statehood is to gain seats

It's funny how the purported logic of that particular argument is entirely seperable from any particular bill. It could, in fact, be applied equally even to a process rigged against statehood on the off chance that the Puerto Rican voters shifted their positions in enough numbers as to overwhelm that obstacle.

If they had a rigged vote against statehood I would hope they would oppose it too.

The decision on whether or not to be the 51st state should be up to the residents of Puerto Rico and not dependent upon whoever gets to pick the particular voting methodology.

Too bad the same 'logic' could (and I believe would) be applied against even a perfectly unbiased process, as well.
The fact that it has in this instance been applied to a process that is (claimed as - I haven't looked into it enough to form an opinion on that point) biased in favour of statehood is irrelevant. That particular argument is against supporting a process that COULD lead to statehood because that would dilute the Republican presence in the US federal government.