This is a real headline from The New Republic.
What in the actual heck is this?
How is that relevant in the least??
The man is arguably dead now, but as the sub's oxygen was running out, the journalist class felt it necessary to spend their time digging into one of the passenger's political donations?
Public campaign finance records indicate that Stockton Rush, the CEO of OceanGate currently stuck on the missing Titan submersible that was running a tourist expedition of the Titanic wreck, has been a consistent Republican donor over the years.
Now a point of caveat here: According to these public finance records, Rush was not a Republican megadonor, but his donations over the years leaned heavily toward Republican candidates.
Why? Why would they write this?
You know the answer, and if you don't, I'll spell it out:
They did this research so they could tell the public whether to mourn this man's death or not.
- If he donated to AOC, Greta Thunberg, and Planned Parenthood, he would be a hero. His name would be on the lips of the faithful as the international community weeps over this historic loss.
- If he donated to conservatives, he's just a Nazi who probably deserved it anyway.
That's the only reason you would have to have a "caveat" here.
"He gave to Republicans – BUT! – he wasn't a huge donor."
Translation: "It's okay to feel sad but not too sad."
How wicked do you have to be to write something like this story? If you don't believe in the total depravity of the human heart, now would be a good time.
I wish I could say the hacks at The New Republic didn't do this daily, but they ran this headline the same day:
