Walter White's Political Term Differs Slightly from Lyndon B. Johnson's

I already know two other people in class watch Breaking Bad; they're probably more caught up than I am. In this New Yorker article, Ian Crouch argues for the similarity between Bryan Cranston in the role of Walter White to his role of Lyndon B. Johnson in All the Way, which just premiered. The idea, and more viscerally, the picture here (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2013/09/bryan-cranston-lyndon-johnson-breaking-bad.html) are beautiful.

But the argument:
 "Cranston plays L.B.J. big: he barks, whines, guffaws, and, in a few moments of manic despair, cries, wondering why his political enemies and other human obstacles won’t simply give him the one thing he really wants: love. His Civil Rights Act will lessen the scourge of racism and help bring the South into the modern era, he says, and he’s baffled and enraged when critics on the left dismiss him as a redneck and those on the right call him a traitor. Can’t they see that the choices he’s made, the things he’s had to give up or give away, have all been for them? Alert to his despair, his wife rushes to his aid, but he most often shouts her out of the room.
"Walter White’s foray into meth began as a desperate money grab for his family, protection for when he was no longer around. But that pretense didn’t last long—by the first episode, he was already marveling at the thrill of being an outlaw (“I am awake”)—and later, after he’d gone headlong into the business, the notion that he was working for anyone but himself was a lie that only he believed. All of which makes his constant refrain—some version of “all the sacrifices that I’ve made for this family”—so hollow and false. And like Johnson’s cruelty toward Lady Bird in the play, Walter White’s love of his wife often seems more notional than real—just another emotional lever.
Both are skillful and flexible manipulators."

This argument pulls a classic New Yorker argument style by heaping on so much evidence that a reader couldn't possibly dream of disagreeing with the writer or his article. In case you're wondering, Mr. Crouch italicizes his comparison point. First, from this conclusion, it looks like Crouch's just working with the fact that Cranston fulfills both roles. (Someone didn't pass his media studies class). The point of having these two annoying paragraphs is to demonstrate how someone can put verbosity as an argument and hope that it makes a general claim look revelatory.

Perhaps other Breaking Bad watchers differ and agree with this argument totally. Thoughts?