Donald J. Trump is making "indefensible" and "inexcusable" and "racist" arguments that are "offensive" and "un-American." He must be elected president of the United States.

This is the current position of many leaders of the Republican Party. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell made that case explicitly in an interview on Fox Business Network Tuesday.

"Well, he uttered a series of outrageous and unacceptable statements over the last week, and I addressed them at various points during the week. I think the less said about all that the better. What he ought to be working on is unifying the party and getting ready to try to defeat Hillary Clinton in the fall," said McConnell.

House speaker Paul Ryan echoed those sentiments during a press conference in Washington Tuesday morning. Ryan's aides expressed frustration that questions about Trump distracted from Ryan's press availability unveiling a new GOP anti-poverty project. But Ryan, in response to those questions, said Trump's comments on U.S. district court judge Gonzalo Curiel was "the textbook definition of a racist" attack. But, he added, "I believe we are far better off…with his candidacy than Hillary Clinton's candidacy."

On Sunday, Senator Bob Corker sought to move beyond Trump's racist attack on the judge. "Look, I don't condone the comments and we can press on to another topic," Corker said on "Face the Nation," his exasperation evident. Corker still supports Trump for president.

Let's pause for a moment to appreciate the absurdity of these arguments. Take McConnell's comments. He calls Trump's attacks on Judge Curiel "outrageous" and "unacceptable." And then, in the very next sentence, asks us to accept them: "I think the less said about all that the better." He concludes with advice to Trump that makes clear that his outrage about these unacceptable comments was ephemeral.

McConnell wants everyone to pipe down about Trump's comments. Ryan wants Republicans to look beyond their objections to Trump's racist comments and support the nominee. Corker just wants to move on. Their perfunctory denunciations of his comments lose all meaning when they are followed immediately by exhortations of party unity and calls to rally around the man who made them.

What's particularly striking about the reaction of Trump-supporting Republicans–including the two top Republican elected officials in the country–is their eagerness to pretend that Trump's comments are not a reflection of his character or that they don't call into question his fitness to serve as president.

But they are a reflection of his character and they ought to call into question his fitness to serve. Two reasons: 1) Trump has made clear that he sees nothing wrong with his comments, and, 2) Trump's attacks on Judge Curiel are not anomalous—they are part of a pattern of troubling behavior of issues of race and ethnicity.

If Republican leaders are eager to move past Trump's attacks on Judge Curiel, Trump is not. He doesn't think he's done anything improper and he is doubling down. Trump told the Wall Street Journal last week that Curiel had "an absolute conflict" in presiding over the Trump University case because of his "Mexican heritage." When CNN's Jake Tapper pressed him–more than 20 times–about his claims, Trump repeated them and disclaimed any bigotry.

"If you are saying he cannot do his job because of his race, is that not the definition of racism?" Tapper asked. "No, I don't think so at all," Trump said.

In a conference call with staff and surrogates on Monday, Trump called for those defending him to escalate their attacks on Judge Curiel and the media. And many of those surrogates did exactly that in media appearances over the next 24 hours. Trump has decided that the best response to criticism of his race-based attacks is to offer more race-based attacks and to do so more aggressively.

This is Trump being Trump. Virtually everyone not working for Trump–officially or unofficially–sees his attacks on Judge Curiel as bigoted and offensive. Trump sees them as unproblematic, even appropriate. We know this not just because he's doubling down on it now, but also because his comments to the Wall Street Journal and CNN last week were themselves an escalation of a previous attack.

Trump lashed out at Judge Curiel during a speech in late February. And while his accusation then was merely implied rather than stated outright, it was nonetheless unmistakable. "The judge should have thrown the case out on summary judgment," Trump said during a rambling speech on February 27. "But because it was me and because there's a hostility toward me by the judge, tremendous hostility, beyond belief––I believe he happens to be Spanish, which is fine, he's Hispanic, which is fine, and we haven't asked for a recusal, which we may do, but we have a judge who's very hostile."

Trump called Obama a "terrible president who happens to be African-American." As a protestor was being escorted from one of Trump's rallies, the candidate shouted: "Are you from Mexico? Are you from Mexico? Are you from Mexico?"

Trump defenders claim that their candidate was not using race and ethnicity as vehicles for attack, but merely making harmless observations. The obvious question, and one that might at some point be put to Trump: Why? To what end?

And what of Trump's bizarre refusal–under direct questioning–to reject the support of David Duke and the KKK? And his disingenuous claims that he didn't know enough about Duke or the KKK to condemn their hatred?

On February 24, Duke had urged his supporters to volunteer for Trump, saying, "You're gonna meet people who are going to have the same kind of mind-set that you have." He added: "Voting for these people, voting against Donald Trump at this point, is really treason to your heritage."

Trump was asked about the support from Duke at a press conference on February 26 and offered a grudging disavowal.

As I stated at the press conference on Friday regarding David Duke- I disavow. pic.twitter.com/OIXFKPUlz2 — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 28, 2016



Two days later, on February 28, CNN's Jake Tapper asked Trump if he'd go further than his grudging disavowal. "Will you unequivocally condemn David Duke and say that you don't want his vote and that of other white supremacists in this election?"

Trump didn't do this. Instead, he refused to condemn those groups–in any way–and in his answers on CNN repeatedly made claims that weren't true.

"Well, just so you understand, I don't know anything about David Duke," Trump said. "I don't even know anything about what you're talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don't know. I don't know – did he endorse me or what's going on? Because, you know, I know nothing about David Duke. I know nothing about white supremacists. And so you're asking me a question that I'm supposed to be talking about people that I know nothing about."

Trump surely knew about the endorsement–he'd be asked about it two days earlier. And he disavowed it presumably based on what he knew about Duke.

Tapper followed up. "I guess the question from the Anti-Defamation League is, even if you don't know about their endorsement, there are these groups and individuals endorsing you, would you just say, unequivocally, you condemn them and you don't want their support?"

"Well, I have to look at the group. I don't know what group you're talking about. You want me to condemn a group that I know nothing about. Look, if you would send me a list of the groups, I will do research on them and certainly I would disavow if I thought there was something wrong," said Trump.

"The Ku Klux Klan?" said Tapper.

"You may have groups in there that are totally fine and it would be very unfair, so give me a list of the groups and I'll let you know," said Trump.

"Okay, I'm just talking about David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan here," said Tapper.

"Honestly, I don't know David Duke," Trump claimed to Tapper. "I don't know if I've ever met him. I'm pretty sure I didn't meet him. I don't know anything about him."

But Trump had rejected Duke's support in the past. In an interview in 2000 with Matt Lauer, Trump explained his reservations about joining the Reform party. "Well, you've got David Duke just joined–a bigot, a racist, a problem. I mean this is not exactly the people you want in your party."

At the time of the KKK flap, Trump took heat from some of his biggest boosters. Senator Jeff Sessions called on Trump to make "clear" his rejection of Duke and the KKK. Joe Scarborough called the comments "disqualifying." Newt Gingrich said Trump "messed up" his answers on white supremacists.

Some of the toughest criticism came from the top leaders of congressional Republicans. In comments clearly directed at Trump, Mitch McConnell blasted the "seeming ambivalence" toward David Duke and the KKK from one of the Republican presidential candidates. "Let me make it perfectly clear: Senate Republicans condemn David Duke, the KKK and his racism," McConnell said. "That is not the view of Republicans that have been elected to the United States Senate. I condemn his comments in the most forceful way." He added: "The Republican Party condemns in the strongest possible language David Duke, the KKK and everything they stand for."

House Speaker Paul Ryan also blasted Trump. "This party does not prey on people's prejudices," Ryan exclaimed. "If a person wants to be the nominee of the Republican party, there can be no evasion and no games. They must reject any group or cause that is built on bigotry."

As the events of this past week make clear, Donald Trump has not rejected bigotry, he's embraced it. And he has encouraged his supporters to step up their bigoted attacks on Judge Curiel. And while the recent criticism of Trump from Ryan and McConnell this week sounds a lot like what they said a few months ago, there is one difference. This time, they each ended their denunciations of Trump's bigotry with a call for him to become president of the United States.