In response to:

NYT Op/Ed: Tim Scott is a "Cynical Token," and No Symbol of Progress

The Original Alice Wrote: Dec 19, 2012 4:21 PM
I think it's kind of funny (and extremely telling) that I didn't know Tim Scott was black until I heard it on NPR, who HAD to mention his skin color upon his appointment. The articles I'd read up until them on TH and on other [conservative] sites, as well as some radio broadcasts I'd heard, hadn't felt the need to mention the pigmentation of his skin. (Some may have run photographs, but I didn't notice them, I guess. Or maybe I didn't care?) They were more concerned/thrilled with his spotless record on Right to Life and adherence to Tea Party principals. Of COURSE it was the racist Left who gave a flip about Scott's skin color. They're obsessed. But how many [liberal] blacks serve in liberal white districts? Zip. Only in black districts.
lois01 Wrote: Dec 19, 2012 4:33 PM
that is funny - you must not read TH much:

With Sen. Jim DeMint on his way to take the reins at the Heritage Foundation, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley is charged with selecting his replacement for the next two years. According to multiple sources, her pick is Rep. Tim Scott, who will be the only African-American Republican in Congress when the new sessions gavels in:
The Original Alice Wrote: Dec 19, 2012 4:50 PM
Never said I read every single article - just that "the articles I'd read up until then."

Remember, it isn't "progress" unless the Left approves.  On Monday, I wondered how race-obsessed liberals would react to a conservative, Indian-American, female governor appointing a conservative, African-American product of a single-parent home to the US Senate.  In the South.  To great fanfare and virtually universal applause on the Right.  In short, not well.  From today's repulsive New York Times column by Ivy League professor Adolph Reed, Jr:

When Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina announced on Monday that she would name Representative Tim Scott to the Senate, it seemed like another milestone...