If you think "repugnant" is a kinder (and less potentially racist/sexist?) thing to say about a politician than "doesn't sound very nice", your English comes from a different dictionary than mine. "Repugnant" is quite a personal insult. "Doesn't sound very nice" is not only fairly mild (well, obviously a deliberate understatement, admittedly), but it leaves room for doubt that the person may have been unfairly represented. Most of us, after all, only have the news outlets as a source of information and we know they aren't always impartial. (I was in the Civil Service for 30 years and have friends who are still there, so I do also have a bit of - perhaps now outdated - insight.)
As for the comments that it's better to have a bastard that gets things done than a nice leader who doesn't step on too many toes: it may not be necessary to be nice in order to be effective, but it is perfectly possible to be both. Or if you can't manage effective, which maybe you can't help, at least for the love of God be polite, which is a choice. When you're in charge of a Government Department you don't have to be rude. The underlings have to do as you tell them anyway. Someone has been watching too many old episodes of Yes Minister. Mind you even Sir Humphrey at his most obstructive never refused a direct instruction iirc (ps and he was also fictional).