Of his work, I've read "A Desert Called Peace" and it seemed to be pretty much nothing BUT heavy handed political messages mixed with wish-fulfillment, so I haven't felt the desire to read more of his work since. Now it's possible A) I simply happened to pick one of his lesser work works and he has also written other much better books B) his writing style appeals to lots of people and I just happen to be an outlier, but another explanation is C) the people who really enjoy his work do so at least in part BECAUSE of the political messages, instead of enjoying the books regardless of the political views put forward. That's not unique to one end of the political spectrum obviously, which is how this whole controversy kicked off in the first place, but the solution isn't to error in the opposite direction, it's to get the focus back on the whether a book/short story etc is enjoyable regardless of political messages.
You also mentioned David Weber, who is a great example of someone whose political principles don't match my own, and, while his views are reflecting in the stories he tells, the books are still plenty entertaining (usually anyway, I don't know what happened with the Safehold series but even there the problem wasn't the politics), and clearly his work shouldn't be penalized because others don't agree with his politics. Come to think of it, from his writing I'm pretty sure Marko Kloos (one of the Sad Puppies backed nominees) and I wouldn't agree politically, but his Andrew Grayson books are excellent, and I'm really happy to see him nominated for Lines of Departure this this year.
So in summary, I agree with you on the general principle of not letting differences in political views get in the way of enjoying or recognizing good writing, but based on my N=1 dataset, I would suggest Tom Kratman may not be a particularly good example to use in making the case to a broad audience for getting politics out of the Hugos.