Santorum spoke to me very early this morning for over 20 minutes, covering a wide range of topics. Santorum’s appearance in Iowa has raised speculation that he may run for president in 2010.

“The reason I came here is because someone asked me to come.  That’s the truth.  I had no grand design to come and speak in Iowa, Santorum said, saying he had been invited to speak by the American Future Fund.  “I said, ‘All right, you know, if we can work out a time I’ll be happy to come out and talk.  I’m doing talks all over the country…I do a lot of speaking; I’ve been doing it for the last three years and so, I thought, yeah, it’s nice to go to Iowa and I come to Iowa and give a speech and people will pay a lot more attention.  Well, that turned out to really be the case and it sort of surprised me because, you know, I did this interview with Politico, you know, asking if I’d do it and I said, ‘Look, you know, I’m doing it because I was asked.’

At this point, I told Santorum that on January 20, 1997 — the day Bill Clinton was inaugurated for a second term — Steve Forbes called me in the Radio Iowa newsroom to announce he would run for the GOP’s 2000 presidential nomination.  Then, I asked Santorum if he is running in 2012.

Santorum: “‘No, you know, I don’t know what, I was asked to come here. I ‘m concerned about the country.’ And I believe that we need to have a voice out there, someone who can articulate the Republican vision on all fronts and I think if you look at my record, I check the boxes and I think I’ve been effective in articulating that in the time that I’ve been in office…and I try to be out there and provide an alternative point of view.

“I have to tell you I was surprised by the response, just invitations…If you Googled ‘Santorum in Iowa’ before I did that Politico interview, there were 350 items would come up, entries that would come up on the search.  I Googled it this morning. You know how many came up?  Guess….1,360,000 entries!  That surprised me, you know, when I see that and when I saw the reaction out there.  It’s a little, it makes you step back and think when I actually wasn’t thinking about it.

“You say I should have been thinking about this long ago.  Well, I wasn’t. Am I thinking about it seriously now?  Well, I’m here.

“When you sit in the United States Senate, as I have for the past 12 years, and you look at all the people who run for president, I know ‘em all.  It’s the old idea of familiarity breeds contempt I don’t think is true, but you certainly know people and you know their pluses and minuses and you get to really know these people and you look around and you say, ‘How can any of these guys — because you know how tough the job is — how can any of these people really be president of the United States?’ And the bottom line is you come to realize as you certainly meet presidents of the United States that none of these people are perfect, all of these people have pluses and minuses and good people around them and bad people. I mean, there’s nobody that really can be president if you think about it.  No one really qualifies for that job and if you really go out and you really want that job, I’m a little suspicious of you.  If you really believe you can do that job and you have a lot of confidence (and say,) ‘Oh, yeah, I can do this,’ I worry about you because you don’t really know what you’re up against if that’s the kind of attitude that you bring to it so I always look for someone who has a little sense of perspective and humility when you look at this and so if that’s what I look for in a candidate  then certainly if this is even in the realm of possibility for me to do, then that’s certainly how I’m going to approach the situation and I don’t know, maybe I need to be thinking about this, but, boy, this is a huge commitment.  This is a big job.  This is an important thing and I’m not going to enter into it lightly.”

Henderson: “Do you want to put your family through it?”

Santorum: “That’s a big issue.  I mean, I’ve got seven kids.  I’m talking today about my youngest daughter…and you know, every day from her is a gift.  She’s not supposed to be here and so you think about, ‘Do I want to spend that time away? Will she even be here when that goes on?  What will be the effect on my family?’ I mean, it’s a big decision and I so I know people here sort of, you know, and I say people –  reporters, you have this sort of hard-boiled look at things and everybody’s got their angle and their agenda.  I get that.  I understand that.  You know, I see it.”

Henderson: “Well, as you saw by Googling yourself, there is a part of the political culture that is in a 24/7 campaign mode.”

Santorum: “Sure.  Well the other thing is, I talked to some party leaders out here and they’re always concerned about Iowa’s position and whether they can maintain that position.  If my little foray is any indication, you guys still have it.  You’ve still got it.  People still  hear, ‘Iowa,’ and they get it.  They get the importance of the state, but look, it’s a tough decision and it’s not going to be one that I make quickly and it’s not going to be one that I will make based just on, ‘Hey, can I win or can I compete?’ I mean, part of it is, certainly the reason I’m here and if I would do it, I would think: ‘Is my voice an important voice at this time for the country?’ and that’s sort of the first hurdle that I’ve got to get through is, ‘Do I make a contribution?’  If I make a contribution, that’s step one.  Then you get into all the other details of everything else, from the political point of view.  Obviously, even before step one, on the non-political, is the whole family consideration.  That, to me, is very important.”

I opened this morning’s conversation by asking Santorum if he had sought advice from former Iowa Congressman Jim Nussle, a fellow Republican who unsuccessfully ran for governor in 2006 and, in 2007 and 2008, served as the last budget director in the Bush Administration.

“We’re part of the famous or infamous, depending on your perspective, ‘Gang of Seven,’” Santorum said.  “…The most important advice I got from him was: ‘relax and be yourself.’”

Santorum later in the conversation added that he is often mistakenly identified as the congressman who wore the paper bag and unmasked himself during a speech on the House floor, a symbolic move as the “Gang of Seven” called for disclosing members of congress who had bounced checks at the House Bank.  “It was Nussle (who wore the paper bag).  Here in Iowa you know that, but I get accused of that all the time. It was Jim Nussle!  It wasn’t me,” Santorum said, with a laugh.

A live “webstream” of Santorum’s speech this evening is available here.

UPDATE with clarification:  you do not have to be present at the precinct caucus to be elected a delegate to the county convention, but if you want to be a county convention delegate, you’ve got to let the precinct caucus leader know in advance of Saturday, January 23, 2010 at 1 p.m. so your name can be put in consideration. There often are more county delegate slots than willing delegates, but it can be an issue if there’s larger-than-normal precinct caucus turnout.

Republican Party of Iowa chairman Matt Strawn said this morning (during taping of this weekend’s edition of “Iowa Press”) he would talk to Iowa Democratic Party chairman Michael Kiernan about the letter the two party leaders have received, but Strawn did not indicate a change would be made.

“The Caucuses are one area in which the parties do work together. Republicans and Democrats alike have to ensure that Iowa protects its first in the nation status and one thing that we need to make sure that we are involving as many people in the process as possible and that’s a decision that chairman Kiernan and I made together that we want to make sure that those folks who have working concerns, that have family concerns have the ability to participate in the process, so we decided in the non-presidential year that, as an experiment, we would try a caucus on a Saturday

“..I was in receipt of that letter (from the coalition of Jewish groups) yesterday, so I’m sure that chairman Kiernan and I will talk further on that issue,” Strawn said.

UPDATE: the Iowa Democratic Party’s executive director issued a statement early this afternoon.

Statement of Iowa Democratic Party Executive Director Norm Sterzenbach:
Iowa Democrats and Republicans have chosen to hold 2010 caucuses on a Saturday. Both parties continue to listen to input about the jointly selected date. The discussion is healthy and desirable.
Valid concerns have been expressed about Saturday caucuses, just as valid concerns have existed when caucuses have been held on Monday nights.

Some context is in order: at the 2010 caucuses, local activists will re-engage with the party. There will be no candidate preference groups and no delegates selected.  Voters who cannot attend the off-year caucuses will not be disenfranchised. The purpose of the caucuses is to launch the party’s biennial organizational process. They are followed by county, district and state conventions – each traditionally held on Saturday.

We welcome and will take note of expressed concerns as we evaluate the effectiveness of Saturday caucuses in 2010 and, later, plan for the 2012 Presidential caucuses.

Read the news release issued this morning by the Jewish Council for PUblic Affairs:

Jewish Groups to Political Parties: “Move Iowa Caucuses”
Planned Date forces Jewish Voters to Choose Between Faith, Civic Duty

NEW YORK – Unless rescheduled, the planned 2010 Iowa Caucuses will disenfranchise Jewish voters, says a coalition of 18 Jewish organizations organized by The Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA).

The Republican and Democratic Iowa Caucuses are currently planned for Saturday, January 23, 2010.  The Jewish community recognizes Saturday as its Sabbath – a day set aside for rest, prayer and reflection.   The 2010 caucuses would be the first time the Iowa Caucuses would be held on the Sabbath.

The Jewish coalition opposed to holding the Iowa Caucuses on the Sabbath notes that the decision to move the Iowa political party caucuses to Saturday “effectively disenfranchises members of the Jewish community” because it would “force members of the Iowa Jewish community to choose between their faith and civic duties.”  Additionally, the Jewish organizations point out that if the caucuses are held on the currently scheduled date, observant Jews “would be unable to work on caucus day to support their candidates of choice.”

Calling the decision “utterly inconsistent with the values of our pluralistic democracy,” the Jewish community’s statement, included in its entirety below, calls on Republican and Democratic Party Chairs in Iowa to “reverse this ill-considered move.”

“Dear Mr. Kiernan and Mr. Strawn:

“A central premise of American politics is the enfranchisement of every citizen. The Jewish community has actively campaigned for fair and equal representation for the voices of majority and minorities alike, the protection of civil rights of all people and unencumbered access for all to the processes that choose our elected leaders. Our nation has thrived because of the tremendous opportunities afforded to people from diverse racial, ethnic, religious and other backgrounds. For this reason, we are distressed to learn that the Democratic and Republican parties of Iowa have decided to hold their 2010 caucuses on a Saturday.

“The decision to move the Iowa political party caucuses to a Saturday effectively disenfranchises members of the Jewish community. Jews who observe the Sabbath could not work on caucus day to support their candidates of choice. Worse, since caucuses do not allow for absentee voting, there would be essentially no opportunity to participate in this important process. This is utterly inconsistent with the values of our pluralistic democracy.

“Voting and participation in the electoral process is a cornerstone of any democracy. It is the highest civic duty most people ever undertake. Saturday caucuses will force members of the Iowa Jewish community to choose between their faith and their civic duties.

“Given the important role Iowa has in our nation’s electoral contests and their leadership position in serving as a role model to other states, we respectfully ask and hope the Democratic and Republican parties to reverse this ill-considered this move.”

The statement was endorsed by The Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA); American Jewish Committee; American Jewish Congress; Anti-Defamation League; B’nai B’rith International; Central Conference of American Rabbis; Hadassah: The Women’s Zionist Organization of America; Jewish Labor Committee; Jewish Reconstructionist Federation; Jewish War Veterans; National Council of Jewish Women; National Jewish Democratic Council; ORT America; Orthodox Union; Rabbinical Assembly; Republican Jewish Coalition; Union for Reform Judaism; and United Synagogues of Conservative Judaism.

The Jewish community coalition was organized by The JCPA, which unsuccessfully advocated to Nevada’s Democratic and Republican party leaders to reschedule its 2007 caucus meetings from the Sabbath.

JCPA is committed to ensuring Jewish and other minority voters across the country, regardless of their political affiliation, are given every opportunity to participate in the electoral process.

JCPA, the public affairs arm of the organized Jewish community, serves as the national coordinating and advisory body for the 14 national and 125 local agencies comprising the field of Jewish community relations.

EDITOR’S NOTE: the phrase “observant Jews” in the first sentence of this post was edited out and replaced with “a coalition of Jewish groups” after a practicing Jew who is active in Iowa politics emailed, saying the coalition represents “ALL Jews, not just observant Jews.”