That's one of those 'say it often enough and people will think it is true' things.
John McCain, Chuck Schumer, Charlie Rangle, DiFi, Steny, Pelosi, McConnell, you look at a great many national figures, of both parties, and there isn't a shred of charisma or likability. They all posses the ONE thing that IS omnipotent; Persistence. Several of those people exude 'mean'. Sheila Jackson Lee wins, I think, because she comes off as so mean.
Does it help? Sure. But, it does NOT trump everything. How could anyone be more charismatic and likeable than Romney was? And how could anyone exude more disdain than Obama did this last time around?
And, more to the point, IF, a big if, IF we, the people, actually believe in smaller government, then, appealing to 'leaners' isn't going to yield any effective results if we DO win. By any objective measure of growth of government, spending, interference with our lives, George W. Bush should be a progressive icon but, his defenders, repeatedly, try and paint him as this person we're supposed to miss amidst the disaster of MORE government that Obama is. Bush doubled the debt. Obama hasn't, at least not yet. Bush added enormous, deeply intrusive departments. Obama is working on it.
Point is, the GREAT advantage the GOP has is one it does not want, nor deserves; a reputation for being the 'small gummint' party AND, that has NOT even been tried. 2016 is most likely going to be an opportunity for the GOP to run the show again, House, Senate and WH. If we do what we did last time, there is NO point in winning. Just let the people who at least admit more government is the answer to all questions have at it.
We need mean, nasty, aggressive, relentless haters of socialism who can speak the language of the innate failures of socialism AND the innate success of individual freedom AND responsibility. That is, if we mean to ever turn this thing around. The deeper truth is we, the people simply don't want that no matter how likeable or charismatic the spokesperson for it.