There are more and more political games coming out now, so to ignore politics would be naive. A good example of this is Bioshock Infinite which has raised debates between the Tea Party Movement and Occupy Wall Street. If a critic ignores the impact on their ideologies, then a critic isn't looking at the big picture.
When critiquing something you have to look at everything not just a single aspect of something. Like they say look at both sides of the story. You have to analyze everything. It's the critics responsible to tell us everything about a game not just its gameplay and graphics. I want to know if it's a racist game so I don't look bad buying or playing it.
Game's are meant to be that... A Game. Not a political agenda. While you can involve an agenda, it shouldn't be took when judging if the game if playable.
By that logic, we'd end up with a game as bad in playablility as a 4, receiving a 6 or 7 because it was loaded with great lessons... I don't care about the agenda, I care about if I can play the game and enjoy it.
The Bible Game wasn't that great. While I'm a big time Christian, I wouldn't want to buy that game because a Christian reviewer gave it an 8... It's simply not that good.
An agendas are a subjective matter. Suddenly, a game with a pro-life meaning would get a higher score because of the lesson, while getting bombed by a pro-choicer... It's not okay to do that. Games should be rated by how fun it is. It's already controversial enough to consider graphics when rating a game because that's not what a game is about. It's about how fun playing it is, and how fun replaying it is....
While I do think it is great to consider important issues such as race, gender, sexual orientation in video games, in the end, paid reviewers and professional game journalists should learn to leave the politics at home. We should determine or not whether a game is enjoyable and playable first before we consider social agendas.
While it is possible for politics of games to interfere with one's enjoyment of the game, I do think that there are other gaming elements to be objective about: gameplay, frame rate, graphics, story presentation, etc. And while it's true that not all critics are alike and individual opinions are subjective, I think addressing troubling issues in a game should be written in a different editorial and not affect positively/negatively towards a score in a game.
When a person takes a game seriously, any satire that's supposed to be there starts becoming invisible. I'm sure we all know someone who doesn't like South Park; the reason being that it's probably offensive. And when hearing them complain about it is funny at first, but repeatedly hearing about it several days later becomes boring or annoying.
Many games are political, but a game's political agenda shouldn't interfere with it being a good game. People who review games should certainly mention if a game has a political bias/message, but they shouldn't use it to determine the rating they give to the game. If they do, their own political bias could come into play. However, I would support them using it in determining the grade of a game if the political message gets in the way of it being a good game.