This is apparently too nuanced of a conversation for most college football fans to have, but if you take a step back and think about WHAT the targeting rule is trying to prevent, it's shit like what happened to Bond - a defender launching himself at the head of an airborne defenseless receiver. In order to enforce those hits, language has been included in the rule that unfortunately lumps in many "football plays" like the Taaffe tackle - a defender inadvertently colliding helmets with a running defenseless receiver while trying to make a tackle.
I do agree that the Taaffe hit is usually called targeting, but I'm fine with neither being called. I'd understand if both were called. But to call the Taaffe hit WITHOUT calling the Bond one would literally be the exact opposite of the spirit of the rule.
You are correct that the outrage is mostly fueled due to which team benefitted, not the call itself. If the jerseys were reversed and a Texas defender did what ASU did to Bond with no call, the texags servers would have burned College Station to the ground last night.