The actual ten points were good, but further reflection solidifies my observations of this morning

This morning, I made the point that Squirrel-Hair's Arizona speech was so mired by histrionics, hyperbole and policy reversal that those elements negated the good done by his visit with President Pena Nieto earlier in the day. I quoted from a Caleb Howe piece at RedState to make the thrust of my assertion.

Not everyone sees it that way. A number of observers think that his ten-point immigration plan was the takeaway. I think it's an argument with merit.

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line summarizes the ten points and then substantiates his position that it was a good speech. The points:

1. Build a wall along the Southern border; 

2. End catch and release;

3. Zero tolerance for criminal aliens;

4. Block funding for sanctuary cities;

5. Cancel unconstitutional executive orders;

6. Suspend the issuance of visas to any place where adequate screening cannot occur;

7. Ensure that other countries take their people back when we order them deported;

8. Complete the biometric entry-exit visa tracking system;

9. Turn off the jobs and benefits magnet;

10. Reform legal immigration to serve the best interests of America and its workers.

Ben Shapiro at Daily Wire liked it, too.

Here's the thing, though. As David French at NRO, like Howe at RedState before him, says, the medium through which the list was transmitted was unfortunately true to form:

Last night, Donald Trump outlined the core of a sensible, responsible immigration policy . . . and then promptly obscured that policy in an avalanche of over-the-top rhetoric, inane flourishes, and extravagant promises. He threw raw steaks at an audience hungry for red meat, and in so doing squandered a chance to persuade. 

Or, as my sister put it in a phone conversation today, "I bailed before he finished. I couldn't take being screamed at."

I said I had the same reaction.