"What lesson would that be? You do realize that sitting vice-presidents have lost 3 out of 4 elections in the past 50 years?"
"Yeah, haven't we learned the lessons of President Humphrey, President Mondale, and President Gore?"
The lesson to be learned there is not that sitting VPs don't win. Drawing that conclusion from a sample of just 4 elections is not something I would bet on. The lesson I learned from Humphrey, Mondale, and Gore is that Liberal Democrats and their message of "I will raise your taxes, grow your government, and gut your defense" are not appealing. Dumping Cheney before the election might be sign of fear or weakness. Replacing him after the election next year would be wise. I am a conservative and I don't want to see a Giuliani or Rice presidency. I would prefer to see Bush appoint and groom a conservative VP in 2005/06. If Cheney stays until 2008 you will see an extremely ugly and damaging GOP primary. The GOP primary favors conservatives but a Giuliani with vast populist support or a Rice with a huge media phenomena (black and female) would be strong contenders. The primary would be bloody and divisive and big chunk of voters will be disaffected no matter who wins. Give me a sitting Bill Owens or Bill Frist and leave the bloddletting to the Rat primaries.
The lesson I learned from Humphrey, Mondale, and Gore is that Liberal Democrats and their message of "I will raise your taxes, grow your government, and gut your defense" are not appealing. I'm not sure why you're brining up Mondale. He wasn't a sitting VP when he ran for president. Nixon and GHW Bush were, in addition to Gore and Humphrey. I believe GHW Bush would have lost, too, had he not been facing probably the most inept major party nominee since Goldwater.