I’ll dissent from Rich’s tweet, with the caveat that his Corner post or column defending his position will probably end up being more persuasive. Anyway, Rich says it was a fine speech:

I don’t think it was. There were a few anecdotes. There were some perfectly fine or defensible points. But there was nothing new – and nothing that made news. There was nothing that will move actual votes in Congress. Several claims will get amplified and mocked, like hos supposed concession to Democrats by switching from concrete to steel.

And, not that it matters at this point, but it wasn’t well-delivered, moving or otherwise compelling as a matter of writing or rhetoric.

Meanwhile, politically and psychologically, it was a surrender. He wants to talk about super-scary terrorism, not humanitarian crises. He wants to make it a crisis that warrants him assuming military powers. This address got him no closer to that.

In fact, I think it made things worse for him in the long run. Because he will end up reverting to the narrative her prefers. Who doubts that he will end up changing the messaging in the next 12, 24 or 48 hours from now? But how can he plausibly invoke a national security crisis a week from now, if he didn’t make that case from the Oval Office? He shifted almost entirely from terrorism to drugs and crime. He’ll shift back.