Boy, you sure know how to pick 'em, don't you? This isn't an easy question. Johnson was at far more of a disadvantage than W ever was. He was a Southern Democrat (from Tennessee) in a Northern Republican Administration. And he came to power by accident (Lincoln's assassination) not design. Lincoln had chosen him, a Southern Democrat who'd stayed with the Union when his state seceeded, in order to form what would be called a national unity government today. But it all came apart when Lincoln was murdered. Then there was no one to hold back the Radical Republicans in the government, as Lincoln had done. Johnson tried to, but he got impeached over it, and came within a single vote of conviction. I can't say Johnson was worse than W, but he certainly served under far worse conditions than W did, Afghanistan and Iraq notwithstanding. And I'm sure that if popularity polling had been around back then, he'd have been rated even lower than W is today. But history has shown he was an honorable man who'd been dealt a losing hand and played it as best he could. I think future historians will feel the same way about W. This economic crisis didn't start on his watch. The roots run back to at least the Carter administration. W just had the bad luck to be president when the bubble burst. By the way, I'm 56 years old, have a college degree, and the equivilant in hours of yet another one.