Timothy Burke is disgusted with the New York Times, and soliciting nominations of people who would be more interesting on the Op-Ed page than the Times's current stable of established writers:
As an extension of my last post, let me start the nominations for online writers that you feel like could serve as better columnists for the New York Times than most of the current group. Basic things to consider: reasonably good writers in stylistic terms, evidence that they could handle writing regularly and could write within the space constraints, evidence of the ability to surprise either in their take on issues or in the way that they choose to write about issues, evidence of a wider or different range of concerns than the Usual Suspects.
My nominations are in the post title. Drop over there, and leave him some suggestions. Or, if you don't like having to log in to leave a comment, leave them in comments here.
Those are all good choices. I think Daniel Davies and Jim Henley would both do really great jobs as op-ed columnists.
Fred Clarke would be amazing. Times seems to like Mr. Potters too much to have him though.