Yes, but at the same time on his watch, though he would not have been involved in the detail, NASA pushed the absurd idea of using the Shuttle as a commercial launch vehicle, remember those?
The capture of a disabled satellite with MMU wearing astronauts was impressive, in some exploration and science missions it could be useful, but the reality of the exercise was that it would have been cheaper to build and launch a replacement bird.
Remember all those satellite launching missions with a crew member from the nation's satellite?
Mexico, Saudi Arabia to name just two, then US politicians started getting in on this 'Payload Specialist' act.
Worse, the pressure of 'commercial' (in fact heavily subsidized) missions led to intolerable pressure on Shuttle availability and launches, worse, the semi hijacking of Shuttle by the Pentagon, (which dated back to and adversely affected the design of the Shuttle), made these pressures more acute.
Indirectly, this helped along the poor decision making just prior to Challengers final launch.
In 1984, Reagan approved the station, for reasons that had everything to do with the uncomfortable fact that since the early 70's, the USSR
had a permanent presence in space with the Salyut series, the US had the excellent Skylab, but threw it and it's planned successors away with all the rest of the Apollo infrastructure.
The 'Freedom' programme was typically Reagan era, unfocused, tried to put commercial elements where they did not belong to sell it, were the result of officials working on the very large child like element to Reagan's make up, they made him some 'Freedom' models and he was suitably impressed to approve it.
They ended up spending $11 billion on studies, before the programme was recast into the more practical 'Alpha', later ISS station in concert with Russia, if you think what is now called ISS has eat $ imagine what some of the bigger 'Freedom' configurations would have done, and 'Freedom' would have totally relied on Shuttle, no Proton launches for the base elements, and we know how risky and limited Shuttle is to use as a launch vehicle for a complex space station.
So what should have happened?
From 1975 to the early 90's, NASA kept on pressing for a Shuttle C, basically the engines, fuel tank and SRB's carrying unmanned a much bigger payload into orbit.
As all the main parts were already developed and in service, relatively cheap, little new infrastructure needed.
Not as capable as a Saturn V, but way more capable of putting a load much bigger than Shuttle could manage into orbit, with no crew risk.
So, had Reagan (who I accept was not anti space programme, which Mondale certainly was) approved Shuttle C early on, by the end of his term a modular station using a couple of Shuttle C flights could have been in orbit, waiting for crews and additional smaller modules from regular Shuttles, actually using the Shuttle for what the original design concept called for.
Now I don't know when they would have exceeded spending $11 billion on this, but you can be sure much of the hardware would have been built with it, rather than on endless redesigns.
The NASA/ESA co-operation on Spacelab provided a template for smaller modules for our hypothetical station, the base elements need not be restricted by a normal Shuttles space and weight limitations, because Shuttle C launches these.
Fact is, with our current level of rocket technology, through Salyut and especially Mir, the Russians showed how to do space stations, the US had known but threw it away.
Even on the ISS, NASA has spent your tax $ on a complex life support system, when the Russian elements have well proven systems that do the job a lot cheaper, because they are incrementally improved designs with many years of spaceflight behind them.