Skepticism is erupting in the national papers in respect of our enthusiasm for a presidential run by Mayor Bloomberg. The Wall Street Journal yesterday, in a lead editorial, said it wasn’t aware of any cause or idea that Mr. Bloomberg represents that the main parties have ignored, and asked, “which of the 50 states would Mr. Bloomberg be able to win to deny one of his competitors an electoral college majority?” On the Web site of Commentary, Dan Fish wrote, “What I can’t understand is why the NY Sun has been flogging this frivolous idea. The Sun presents itself as a platform for a serious non-leftist view of events, offering opinion and news from what could generally be described as a neoconservative perspective . . . On almost every issue, however, Bloomberg offers nothing but establishment-left orthodoxy, even if it is a leftism of the corporate-friendly Schumer-Dodd-Corzine-Feinstein variety.”

Let us offer some answers by gently referring our friends at the Wall Street Journal to their own editorial page. There, in an opinion article published November 1, 2006, under the byline of one Michael Bloomberg, New York’s mayor wrote, “The total value of securities class-action lawsuits in the U.S. has skyrocketed in recent years, to $9.6 billion in 2005 from $150 million in 1997. The U.K. and other nations have laws that far more effectively discourage frivolous suits. It may be time to revisit the best way to reduce frivolous lawsuits without eliminating meritorious ones.” In another opinion article, published on the Journal’s editorial page on May 24, 2006, Mr. Bloomberg wrote that immigration is the “critical domestic issue” of the decade, and he wrote of the need for an immigration policy that will support economic growth by increasing the number of visas for immigrant workers.”

Seems to us that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans this season are running on a pro-growth platform on immigration and tort reform of the sort that Mr. Bloomberg sketched in the Wall Street Journal and that the Journal’s own editorial columns have championed for decades. If Senator McCain emerges as the Republican nominee things may be different, but Governors Huckabee and Romney and even Mayor Giuliani, who had as mayor been one of the most eloquent advocates of immigration, have turned needlessly against a pro-growth immigration policy in the primary season. The Democrats seem uncomfortable discussing the issue. The Democrats and Republicans in Washington failed to pass an immigration bill, a default that Mr. Bloomberg’s pollster Douglas Schoen writes in his forthcoming book, “Declaring Independence,” “would give a third-party candidate an advantage in the southwestern states as well as Florida, California, and Texas with their large immigrant populations.”

As for civil litigation reform, the Democrats, and not only Senator Edwards, are captives of the trial lawyer lobby. But can you think of a Republican presidential candidate who has been speaking out about the issue or airing television commercials on it or building a mandate for change on it or even writing, as Mr. Bloomberg did, an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal about it? Even if Mr. Bloomberg has his streaks of liberalism — as he does — his ability to finance his own campaign independently of the trial lawyers money machine is no small matter.

These two issues — pro-growth immigration policies and reining in frivolous securities litigation — are important elements of what one might call the neoconservative case for a Bloomberg candidacy. But they aren’t the only legs of that case. Mr. Bloomberg’s New York Police Department has taken an aggressive stance against Islamic extremist terrorism, launching undercover sting operations. He and his famous police commissioner, Ray Kelly, have done so with markedly little swagger, while quietly breasting condemnation from leftists posing as civil libertarians as well as some Arab-American and Muslim groups. The mayor denied antiwar protesters Central Park during the Republican National Convention and then arrested them en masse when they became disruptive.

Mr. Bloomberg, by the way, stood up for President Bush’s nominee to be ambassador at the United Nations, John Bolton, against Democratic opposition, calling the opposition to Mr. Bolton “an outrage,” “a disgrace,” and “a cheap political stunt.” Said the mayor, “I think countries like America and Israel will suffer because they won’t have John Bolton there.” And he did this even while courting the United Nations to stay in New York. Mr. Bloomberg backed Mr. Bush against attempts by Democrats in Congress to announce a timeline for withdrawal in Iraq, calling such legislative efforts “untenable” and irresponsible. He has resisted attempts to water down the work requirements in Mayor Giuliani’s welfare reform. He has imposed counter-terror bag, package, and briefcase searches in the subways, fighting off a lawsuit by the New York Civil Liberties Union.

As for the electoral college math, it’s pretty simple. Mr. Bloomberg takes his home state of New York (31 electoral votes). He takes his original home state of Massachusetts, where his mother still lives, and which will understand Mr. Bloomberg as a William Weld, liberal on social issues but tough on crime and spending type (12 electoral votes). He takes Florida, to which his daughter has ties and which has 27 electoral votes; he does it on his immigration stance, support from elderly Jewish voters in Broward and Palm Beach counties, and a surprise endorsement from Governor Jeb Bush, who has worked with Mr. Bloomberg — and his education chancellor, Joel Klein — on education issues. He takes California, with its 55 electoral votes, on the strength of an endorsement from independent-minded Governor Schwarzenegger.

It wouldn’t surprise us were Mr. Bloomberg able to pick up New Jersey, with its 15 electoral votes, on the strength of the spillover of his reputation as a New York mayor across the Hudson. He picks up Connecticut and its seven electoral votes on the strength of an endorsement from Senator Lieberman and more spillover from the New York press and broadcast market. He picks up Pennsylvania, with 21 electoral votes, on the strength of an endorsement from Senator Specter and strong support in the Philadelphia Main Line suburbs. He picks up the new technology belt of Virginia (13), Washington state (11), Georgia (15) and North Carolina (15), on the strength of his accomplishments as a technology entrepreneur. He picks up Minnesota (10), which elected an independent, Jesse Ventura, as governor a few years back.

Texas’s 34 electoral votes, on the basis of the immigration issue and the tech belt around Austin — and the endorsement of Ross Perot — would bring Mr. Bloomberg to a total of 266. Arizona and its 10 electoral votes put Mr. Bloomberg over the top on the strength of Mr. Bloomberg’s choice of Senator McCain as his running mate (a match made by Henry Kissinger) after Mr. McCain loses the Republican presidential nomination to Governor Huckabee. And that doesn’t even take into account Maine, Colorado, or Tennessee, all of which are winnable for Mr. Bloomberg.

* * *

This may be overly rosy, even improbable, but it’s no more improbable than the prospects of the other candidates who’ve been mauling each other in the cornfields of Iowa. We have not endorsed Mr. Bloomberg, just encouraged him to run, and we can see elements to admire in many of the candidates on the Republican side, particularly Mayor Giuliani and Governor Romney, if one can get past their pandering at the moment on immigration, and Senator McCain, if one can get past his assault on the First Amendment via a law that bears his name and regulates campaign speech.

No newspaper in this country has criticized Mr. Bloomberg more bluntly than has this one — when we’ve thought he was wrong. And we certainly disagree with him on a number of issues, from taxes to guns to federal judges. His comment this week that America needs to “rebuild the relationships that the country has around the world or used to have” is ill-informed and a cheap shot in the wake of the warm visits Mr. Bush has recently had from the newly elected pro-American leaders of France and Germany. But many of those laughing at the prospect of a Bloomberg presidential run also found unlikely the idea that a self-financed Republican who had never before held public office could be elected mayor of heavily Democratic New York City and then be re-elected in a landslide. And they may look at Mr. Bloomberg’s prospects differently if the alternative to him running is the two-way contest the Iowans are mooting between Governor Huckabee and Senator Obama.