If GOP can't lose 3 senators, why is Murkowski still being....

[gratuitous]

6. McCain has said he is a provisional no

But Paul, Collins, and Murkowski haven't issued definite "No, I'm not voting for this lousy bill" statements (at least not that I've seen). Last time around, Collins and Murkowski came out as "no" very early, and McCain, ever the aficionado and hero of his own personal drama, waited until the last possible second to register his "no" vote.

Republican leadership is trying to bribe Murkowski by saying that Alaska can stay with the Affordable Care Act, but you have to throw the rest of the country under the bus. The bribe doesn't really make sense, since if this latest bill goes down, Alaska keeps its ACA program anyway. It's just whether Murkowski decides the rest of the country can go to hell so long as Alaska is taken care of. Not an attractive offer.

Paul say he won't be bullied, but his career is chock full of brave words followed by craven actions. The slightest change in the political winds will be enough to swing the weatherrand in a completely different direction.

I don't know what Collins is up to. Her early "no" last time around may have consigned her to the sidelines, and she craves a little spotlight this time around?