The corny premise of No Labels is that partisanship is destroying America and that solutions can be found by listening respectfully to one another and compromising on common ground. To whatever extent you find this theory persuasive, it's impossible to deny Biden has done more to make it a reality than any president in decades.

No Labels explains that its campaign to put a centrist candidate on the ballot is needed because "we see our two major political parties dominated by angry and extremist voices driven by ideology and identity politics rather than what's best for our country. We hear reason and persuasion -- the pillars of our democracy since its founding -- being replaced by anger and intimidation." This indictment might apply to one of the two major candidates but not to both of them.

The organization's remedy is even more curious. It calls for a "common sense" platform of negotiating prescription-drug prices, stricter enforcement of immigration laws combined with higher legal immigration and amnesty for Dreamers who came to this country as children, universal background checks for gun purchases and closing the gun-show loophole, an all-of-the-above approach to energy, funding for localities to hire and train police, permitting reform, and strong support for NATO and other allies. What about abortion? The "common sense" solution No Labels embraces ("Abortion is too important and complicated an issue to say it's common sense to pass a law -- nationally or in the states -- that draws a clear line at a certain stage of pregnancy") is a gentle way of saying "pro-choice."

1. Cherry-picking • The author cherry-picks similarities between Biden's positions and some planks in the No Labels platform, while ignoring key differences on substantive policy issues like immigration (where No Labels backs much stricter enforcement than in Biden's own proposals), energy (where Biden seeks to eliminate fossil fuels by 2035, going against the "all of the above" approach of No Labels), and voter ID laws (which No Labels endorses but Biden has opposed). This selective use of evidence results in a false equivalence between the Biden and No Labels agendas. ​
2. Genetic fallacy • The author's speculation about Lieberman and Penn's personal motivations based on their past experiences could be considered a type of genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is when a viewpoint is judged good or bad, true or false, on the basis of its origin rather than its inherent meaning and merit. In this case, the author suggests Lieberman and Penn's judgments about the Democratic party being too extreme may be influenced by their past failures and rejection from the party leadership. Rather than directly engaging with the substance of No Labels' critique, the author focuses on the personal background of the messengers. ​ ​a dismissal of No Labels' viewpoint based on perceived motives rather than directly addressing its merits. It subtly implies that if Lieberman and Penn have personal grudges, their claims can be dismissed as simply bitterness. This genetic fallacy weakens the objectivity of the author's critical analysis. It would be better if the author relied entirely on evidence and substantive counterarguments rather than speculation about personal motives.