President Bush seems to be generating headlines for once again refusing to say whether or not he’d fire Rove over Treasongate. Meanwhile, Time is reporting that Rove plans to resign if indicted and Slate is already predicting what might happen in a Rove-free White House. Regardless of whose sources say what, I think the reports of Rove’s impending dismissal are a bit premature. The way I see it, the more likely scenario is for the President to move the bar again and say something along the lines of “I’ve said all along that I’d fire anyone in this Administration that was convicted of a crime.”

Why would the President do something so politically foolish? (Other than the fact that he’s a moron.) Because George W. Bush is stubborn as a mule and loyal to a fault. These qualities always take precedence over whatever direction the political winds are blowing. That’s why he stood by Rumsfeld while the Abu Ghraib scandal threatened his re-election chances. More recently, the President, who was irritated by conservative opposition to Alberto Gonzales, nominated someone to the Supreme Court whose only qualification is personal loyalty.

With a Rove indictment, I think the President’s reaction will be to close ranks around his guy. Does that preclude Rove from resigning himself? Of course not, but let’s remember that the vast majority of retirements in Washington are of the “was asked to tender his resignation” variety. If Bush isn’t gonna stab his boy in the back, then the only exit-scenario would involve Karl Rove putting his agenda ahead of his own ego. Don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen.