Distorting opponent's position by bundling your own conclusions

This feels like a fallacy I've seen written about before. I see it all the time in sales and politics but I'd like to know if there's a name for it and if so what that name is.

It's essentially putting words into an opponent's mouth by saying you are in total agreement with them and then confirming and summarizing their position accurately but bundling in some additional words or details they probably wouldn't agree with. But because you've already agreed with them on so many of their points, they are reluctant to argue with you on the stuff you snuck in there.

Example:

Pat:   "Cars have become more dangerous than ever with so many ways to be distracted. Cars should not be allowed to have any sort of displays visible to the driver, should not have navigation devices, and mobile devices should not function at all while you're in the vehicle because the driver's attention should be completely on the road and this should be strictly enforced with harsh penalties."

Sam: "I completely agree with you, Pat. I don't know how many more people have to die from distracted drivers before lawmakers do something to make displays not visible to the driver, satnav become a thing of the past, mp3 players become standard equipment, mobile phones not work while you're driving and even require auto manufacturers to incorporate small refrigerators in the center console so that drivers can easily reach for snacks and cold beverages. Lawmakers should act right away to do everything you just said to make the roads safer for everyone, especially not having displays visible to the driver. I couldn't agree with you more."

 So in this example, Pat would obviously oppose the MP3 players and the minibar in the console but since they were disarmed and persuaded by Sam that they are correct and in total agreement, Pat starts to become open minded to the additional positions Sam snuck in and possibly eventually adopt those as their own position.

Is there a name for this and if so, what is it called?

This appears to be a variation of the  Hypnotic Bait and Switch.

I think that Sam is adding premises to expand a conclusion.

Visible displays redirects focus.

Not being focused on driving is dangerous.

Mp3 players minimize the use of visible displays. (Added)

Minibars minimize distractions from having to look for a drink in your car. (Added)

Therefore, having visible displays is dangerous while driving. Having Mp3's and minibars minimize dangerous driving.  

Sam is saying that not being focused is bad but proposes more things as part of the solution. Adding a conclusion where the premises do not support it would be a non sequitur. 

Example:

Having visible displays is dangerous for driving.

Therefore, we shouldn't have visible displays (the agreement) and not having them is safe for driving (added conclusion).

In the example, the conclusion does not follow because even though not having visible displays could help for safer driving, there could be other ways that makes driving dangerous; like being tired.