I think there are some key differences between Anderson and Stone Cold which make your idea difficult to execute.
1. A huge part of what got Austin over was how many great villains he had to go against. From HBK to Undertaker to Rock to Foley (as "Dude Love") and of course McMahon himself; the fans WANTED these guys to get beaten and Austin delivered on it. Does TNA have any villains who can bring that out of the fans for Anderson to tap into? Doesn't feel like it.
2. Never to be underestimated in Austin's rise was how well Jim Ross put him over on a weekly basis. JR portrayed Austin in a positive light despite heelish behavior and helped to mold fan perception. Can Tenay and Taz direct the flow of public opinion like that?
3. Austin was simply more naturally funny, while Anderson sometimes seems very forced. His attempts at humor can be pretty annoying (aka "Cena-like").
4. Getting very simplistic here; Austin looked like a badass, while Anderson looks like a douchebag. I know that's just my opinion, but it's a very real aspect of perception. We all do it every day; walking around town we see someone and immediately think, "man... what a jerk!" Anderson comes off that way to me, and it would make it harder for me to perceive him as a hero.
You make some great points and clearly you're an educated fan who looks past what is just 'seen' on tv. No question that SCSA looked the part and it's true that Ross was able to put him over thru his commentary and was indeed able to shape the perception of fans. Also no question that Austin had that subtle heelish behavior (aka the anti-hero) that people could relate to. (I saw it as McMahon being seen as the teacher or 'rich guy' that everyone wanted to punch out at some point in their lives.) His character (Austin's) allowed fans to live vicariously thru him in that respect. Now, I do believe that Anderson has the ability to pull off the anti-hero gimmick but I agree the writing for his character has been overdone as of late with respect to his whining about getting his shot at the title. But that's TNA isn't it? Always too much of everything which shows their desperation to get ratings or gain attention thru any means possible instead of using truly creative writing for the characters and other on-air personalities. Had they written this as Anderson v. TNA Mgmt., i.e. Hogan. Bischoff, and Immortal, I believe that fan perception could have been shaped. Then you ask Anderson to tone it down on the mic even though that's not necessarily his schtick, and to build toward the inevitable showdown at a big PPV for the title. I also think the ambiguity of the writing concerning RVD has not added, but detracted from the overall product. Now perhaps that's at the insistence of RVD or maybe Hogan, but it will eventually lead to either RVD or Anderson turning heel and whomever it is probably winds up with the belt. (Cause I don't see Sting as the long term solution to their problems.) Which means you then have to write AJ back into the picture somehow, get him past the Bubba Ray Dudley issue, and then focused on the title. My guess is it's Anderson they turn heel (sorry getting way off track here I know) so I see Anderson v. AJ for the title at their big PPV, Bound for Glory.
As for the look, true enough Anderson doesn't have the look, but these days look doesn't seem to be the issue in TNA. Note: Samoa Joe, Christopher Daniels and the like who don't have 'the look' that say the WWE has always looked for. So although you're right about that look issue, I don't think in the long run it's really a make or break issue for the writing part of it.
On the humor side, no question TNA needs to have Anderson tone it down a bit, but it's just another example of the nuts running the asylum. Nuff said there.
On your last point, I actually think that Anderson coming off as a jerk actually works in favor of writing him as the anti-hero. Let's not forget that part of the SCSA schtick was that he never met anyone he wouldn't stun. Even those who 'appeared' to be on his side, were often met with the stunned fate. Now true enough SCSA could make it look funny with the beer and all, but I think this is something that can be learned by Anderson. The problem is that right now it's being used more as his frustration at not getting his shot, rather than a jumping off point for humor in using his finisher during interviews, run-ins and the like. If played differently, I do believe this part can be overcome.
No question though that you bring up great points and a lot for me to think about concerning this issue.
