If Mr. Bloomberg is exploring ways to extend his career in public service, as it appears he is, the logical — and right — next move for him would be not to try to finagle a third term as mayor but to run for governor. While Mr. Bloomberg has been a fine mayor, he has been hemmed in on various occasions by Albany. Lawmakers there killed his plans for an Olympic stadium and an expanded convention center, and they blocked his proposal for congestion pricing. They have capped the number of charter schools in the state and moved to prevent Mr. Bloomberg from using student test results in deciding whether to grant tenure to public school teachers.

We’re weren’t (and aren’t) with the mayor on all those issues, but no matter where one comes down on the merits of these points, the fact remains that on so many matters at the heart of Mr. Bloomberg’s mayoral agenda — big real estate development from the West Side railyards to ground zero; transportation and infrastructure improvements such as the No. 7 subway extension or the Second Avenue subway; education policy — the governor has more power than the mayor.

Mr. Bloomberg is known to dislike Albany, but that strikes us as an advantage in a governor. The governor has an office in New York City, and there’s nothing wrong with making it a home base. Mr. Bloomberg has often complained that New York City sends to Albany billions of dollars a year more in taxes than it gets back in services, and as governor he could start to change things. This is not an endorsement, but it’s not too much to say it all starts to add up to a logical case.

The same cannot be said of a third term as mayor. There, Mr. Bloomberg runs the risk of overstaying his welcome. Trying for a third term would be an admission of his failure to groom a successor, and the reversal of term limits that would be necessary to win such a term would risk dooming the city to a new generation of entrenched career politicians in other offices. As a gubernatorial candidate, Mr. Bloomberg could campaign to bring term limits to Albany, a measure that a 2005 poll financed by New Yorkers for Term Limits found was favored by 77% of New Yorkers. As a mayoral candidate, Mr. Bloomberg would be running against the tide of strong public support for term limits, as expressed in two New York City ballot referenda.

One doesn’t have to be a backer of term limits to share this view. Our own sense is that Mr. Bloomberg recognizes this political landscape, which is why his spokesman, Stuart Loeser, has consistently said Mr. Bloomberg will respect the will of the voters on term limits. And why, as our Jacob Gershman reported exclusively in Tuesday’s paper, Mr. Bloomberg is lending his weight to a move to install an ally, Rep. Thomas Reynolds, as chairman of the state Republican Party in place of the current chairman, Joseph Mondello. A campaign for governor based on a message of bringing to the rest of the state the same prosperity and economic growth and dynamism that have made New York City boom over the past six years would have a certain appeal. Mr. Bloomberg already has a home outside New York City, in Westchester County’s Bedford, so it’s not as if he’s solely a New York City creature.

***

Our own view is that the long-term rebuilding of the Republican Party in New York state is going to come on the shoulders of a leader who is more ideological than Mr. Bloomberg and less of a technocrat. It will be a politician willing to go for large marginal income tax cuts, competition from the private sector in health care, tort reform, and tax credits or vouchers for private schools. It may be that Mr. Bloomberg runs for governor as an independent or on the Liberal Party line. But as we said in respect of his presidential bid, the field would only be strengthened by his presence as a contender. Retirement or the sidelines are no place for a public servant of Mr. Bloomberg’s energy and skill.