Tancredo vs. Hunter: A race to the bigot line

Resolved, that the GOP base (and large parts of its upper tiers) is teeming with bigotry, I ask for your thoughts. Which of the following two quotes, from dark horse Republican candidates best encapsulates that party's je ne sais quois:

Duncan Hunter, Wednesday, Nov. 28: "Openly homosexual people serving in the ranks would be bad for unit cohesion. The reason for that, even though people point to the Israelis and point to the Brits and point to other people as having homosexuals serve, is that most Americans, most kids who leave that breakfast table and go out and serve in the military and make that corporate decision with their family, most of them are conservatives. They have conservative values, and they have Judeo-Christian values. To force those people to work in a small tight unit with somebody who is openly homosexual goes against what they believe to be their principles, and it is their principles, is I think a disservice to them."

Tom Tancredo, yesterday: “It is the law that to become a naturalized citizen of this country you must have knowledge and understanding of English, including a basic ability to read, write, and speak the language. So what may I ask are our presidential candidates doing participating in a Spanish speaking debate?”

My first thought when I came up with this game was that Hunter's statement is the better distillation. But then I realized that it's just the more elegant pander. After all, our "Judeo-Christian" military has been given marching orders in the past several months to train and work with former Islamic insurgents in Iraq, so I guess Hunter's real thoughts here aren't "we should separate our Christian soldiers from people who live unchristian lives," but rather "I think gays are worse than terrorists."

Tancredo, by contrast, pretty much hit the mark, even if he shrewdly avoided direct references to Mexican skin color. What do y'all think?