His tactical sense is questionable in my opinion. "Ultimately, I voted yes on final passage because it may delay, slightly, President Obama’s ability to lift the Iran sanctions and it ensures we will have a Congressional debate on the merits of the Iran deal.
I don't think voting for bad legislation to give a slight delay to something is a reasonable tradeoff.
As I've suggested before without this bill the Senate could still debate and pass a bill after they see what Obama has come up with. And yes, Obama would veto it, and it might not get over-ridden, all of which would be great optics for election year.
The Senate failing to get even close to 2/3 needed to reject this will not provide a useful moment to the GOP.
Now the left will argue (as others on this thread already have) that the Senate has effectively given "advice and consent" to this treaty, and so the USA will be bound by it even after his miserableness the Won has gone back to his life of 'choom' and down-low sex in Hawaii.
The Senate won’t vote 2/3rds to reject it?