That's a good point. I'd been thinking of taxes, budgets and social issues but different supreme court nominees are possible as well.Robert Bork on the Supreme Court
Any other thoughts?
That's a good point. I'd been thinking of taxes, budgets and social issues but different supreme court nominees are possible as well.
Could this possibly include education being kicked down to the state level and abolishing the Department of Education?Lots of powers turned over to the states and localities. Except for a few exceptions big enough to drive a truck through, eg. pornography and the War On Drugs.
Interesting how Republicans are all about "states' rights" and "getting the government closer to the people", until it comes to some social/moral issue they care about - then they have no qualms at all when it comes to using the power of the federal government to bulldoze their way as they see fit...Lots of powers turned over to the states and localities. Except for a few exceptions big enough to drive a truck through, eg. pornography and the War On Drugs.
Interesting how Republicans are all about "states' rights" and "getting the government closer to the people", until it comes to some social/moral issue they care about - then they have no qualms at all when it comes to using the power of the federal government to bulldoze their way as they see fit...
Any time some Republican Pol claims to worship at the Shrine of the Almighty Ronnie and spouts off "we're the party of *small government*!", I just have to laugh....
Well I suppose that would only be magnified in a world where Reagan got his way more.Interesting how Republicans are all about "states' rights" and "getting the government closer to the people", until it comes to some social/moral issue they care about - then they have no qualms at all when it comes to using the power of the federal government to bulldoze their way as they see fit...
Any time some Republican Pol claims to worship at the Shrine of the Almighty Ronnie and spouts off "we're the party of *small government*!", I just have to laugh....
Nuclear freeze certainly, he was very active in arms control. Complete unilateral disarmament seems unlikely though.Nuclear disarmament.
All politicians and political parties are hypocrites, this is nothing new.Interesting how Republicans are all about "states' rights" and "getting the government closer to the people", until it comes to some social/moral issue they care about - then they have no qualms at all when it comes to using the power of the federal government to bulldoze their way as they see fit...
Any time some Republican Pol claims to worship at the Shrine of the Almighty Ronnie and spouts off "we're the party of *small government*!", I just have to laugh....
I guess if the obstacle was Europe and not domestic even in his best case scenario he wouldn't be able to get away with it. Interesting to think about though.He and Gorbachev discussed a phased elimination of both side's nuclear weapons. It foundered on the issue of SDI, but Regan was committed to the elimination of nuclear weapons. Predictably, the European NATO members hit the roof when they found out, so perhaps it still wouldn't have happened.
Robert Bork on the Supreme Court
I’m sure there would have been domestic opposition. Reagan did encounter GOP opposition to the INF treat, IIRC and depended on the DNC to get it passed. So, if he had tried to pass a total disarmament treaty it would have faced opposition in Congress. That now does make me think I was wrong in my first post. Reagan would only have gotten something like that passed with a DNC dominated Congress and even then it would be a stretch.I guess if the obstacle was Europe and not domestic even in his best case scenario he wouldn't be able to get away with it. Interesting to think about though.
The Senate was 53-47 R.
Bork's nomination was voted down in October of 1987. The Senate was 54-46 D at that time. (Though 6 Republican senators did vote against Bork, so his nomination might have failed even in a Republican controlled senate.)