Given a document, generate a short title of the document. The title should convey the main idea/event/topic about which the document is being written. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].

[Q]: It was deja vu all over again. With Senate Republicans inching closer to passing an Obamacare replacement bill  a potential fulfillment of seven years of campaign promises   Arizona Senator John McCain  once again intervened to save the failing law.  He  dramatically cast the deciding vote to kill a drastically pared-down "skinny repeal" bill over the summer  then reprised the spoiler role on Friday afternoon by announcing  his  opposition to legislation championed by  his  close friend and ally  Sen. Lindsey Graham. Between  McCain 's statement and Rand Paul's unconvincing 'purity' posture  Mitch McConnell can't afford to lose a single additional member of his caucus. The truth is  he already has. Anyone who's followed Susan Collins' record on this issue knows that Graham-Cassidy is dead. She's technically only "leaning" no  but that's tantamount to a hard no; I'm fairly certain she'd vote against her own Obamacare replacement plan at this point. In revealing his intention to torpedo the latest bill -- with just days remaining before the GOP's reconciliation authority expires  according to the Senate Parliamentarian  -- McCain  used process concerns as  his  primary fig leaf:
In what way is working with Democrats  who are either staunch Obamacare defenders or already moving on to an even bigger government power-grab  likely make healthcare reform better? Like Rand Paul's weak excuse for opposing Graham-Cassidy (given his vote in favor of skinny repeal  which did far less to uproot Obamacare)   McCain 's justification makes little sense. Part of  his  Hamlet act on the previous Senate repeal bill (BCRA) was an insistence that  he  couldn't approve a plan that didn't have the full backing of  his  state's governor  Doug Ducey. "My position on this proposal will be largely guided by Governor Ducey's analysis of how it would impact the people of our state "  McCain  claimed at the time. "My friends  this is legislation that directly affects the people of my state. I trust my governor." Ducey had raised objections to the BCRA  publicly stating that he agreed with  McCain  that it was fatally flawed. While the governor eventually cleared  McCain  to back "skinny repeal" as a means to advancing the process to a conference committee  his concerns about the legislation's underlying content made  McCain 's 'no' vote easier. But guess who explicitly supported the passage of Graham-Cassidy this time? Governor Doug Ducey. Apparently "trusting his governor" no longer mattered to McCain. And then there's this:
General election ad from way back in 2016: "John McCain is leading the fight to stop Obamacare." [Link] pic.twitter.com/3a74vrDMkz â Guy Benson (@guypbenson) July 28  2017
McCain rightly and ruthlessly blasted his Democratic opponent as a supporter of a law that was inflicting disproportionate harm on Arizonans. Then he proceeded to vote exactly as she would have. The Senator's new position is that a bipartisan "fix" is in order. How would his campaign have gone if he'd told voters  "by 'we must repeal and replace Obamacare ' what I really mean is  'we must work with Patty Murray and the Democrats to tweak Obamacare after promising to abandon repeal'"? Perhaps he'd be former Senator John McCain  no longer in a position to be hailed as a "hero" by the exact same people who passionately opposed and slandered him during his presidential run  and who would have called him every name under the sun if he'd reached a different conclusion about a bill written and sponsored by his best friend in Congress. I'll leave you with some journalists wondering if Graham-Cassidy may still have a glimmer of life:
[A]: John McCain: Obamacare Savior


[Q]: As the stock market plunged on Monday  taking the Dow Jones industrial average down almost 1 600 points intraday   CNBC's Jim Cramer  wanted to help investors assess the drop.
"I hate to sound glib here  but ... we were due for a decline. We just were " the "Mad Money" host said. "Markets do not go up in a straight line. "
"Despite the large  scary red numbers you see on your screen  the truth is that these things happen. You've got to be ready for them ... at all times  " Cramer  said.
First   Cramer  analyzed the causes of the sell-off. Bullish exuberance  rising interest rates  declines in key stock sectors and weak-handed shareholders all contributed to the losses  but Europe really "got the ball rolling "  he  said.
[A]: Cramer Remix: The 5 events that triggered the massive sell


[Q]: Two attorneys representing key Donald Trump associates say they consider it possible that  special counsel Robert Mueller  could end up indicting the president for obstruction of justice  Politico is reporting.
Neither attorney claimed to have inside information about  Mueller 's plans and based their comments on their understanding of the law  according to Politico.
But the website noted many legal experts maintain  Mueller  lacks the standing to bring charges against Trump.
Still  one of the lawyers  who represents a senior Trump official  said  Mueller  could try to indict the president even if the move brings challenges from Trump's attorneys.
"It's entirely possible that  Mueller  may go that route on the theory that  as an open question  it should be for the courts to decide " the attorney said. "Even if the indictment is dismissed  it puts maximum pressure on Congress to treat this with the independence and intellectual honesty that it will never  ever get."
And one legal expert maintained  Mueller  will never indict the president.
" Mueller  will not indict Trump for obstruction of justice or for any crime. Period. Full stop. End of story. Speculations to the contrary are just fantasy.
[A]:
Trump Associate Attorneys: Mueller Could Indict the President