Those are your priorities, I see.
So the problem here is that "this gesture will be seen by many as an affirmation" of the incumbent, this prayer by a religious figure at an opposing party's convention.
The problem isn't that this commentator's chosen candidate supports legislation that his religion does not, or that the candidate has behaved in a manner that would have hashtagged him out of town if he hadn't been running against the incumbent.
The news organization this commentator's on is already willing to cut and commentate around views that don't support their sickle tendencies, so seeing an opinion piece like this is not a surprise (good move changing the tagline from "most trusted," by the way). However, this article is just another example that the commentator, the associated network, and the party they support is looking only to defeat an opponent.
Thank you for confirming my choice.