Pennsylvania Republican leaders say they are giving Rick Santorum his day, but NBC News has learnd that Pennsylvania GOP chairman Rob Gleason is calling Mitt Romney to coordinate an endorsement as early as tomorrow.

They are leaving it up to the Romney camp to decide on timing of endorsements, but local officials want to do it as soon as possible.

They say there was real concern within the state party about Santorum, given how badly he lost his last statewide race. Despite loyalty to Santorum for building the party in years past, party officials said that with Santorum at the top of the ticket, they feared losing critical statewide contests including: U.S. Senate (whoever wins the primary fight to run against Democratic incumbent Bob Casey), Attorney General, Auditor General, and State Treasurer.

They also picked up five more GOP members of Congress and are defending legislative seats: 112 out of 203 in the state house and 30 senators of the 50 state senators.

Looking toward the general election, Republicans are at a one-million voter registration disadvantage in the state, but they see a big plus in the new statewide voter ID law. The new law requires a government ID or a student ID that has an expiration date. Many schools have photo IDs without expiration dates, so students without driver's licenses or another government ID would not be able to vote.

Pennsylvania's primary is a complex one -- a popular vote "beauty contest" with specific delegates running without candidate affiliation.

Romney supporters in the state party dominated the delegate-selection process so far. Each delegate running needs enough money to campaign in an area with 750,000 potential voters, so it is expensive.

Party officials estimate that Ron Paul has gotten at least 10 people on the ballot to run for delegate.

Rick Santorum press secretary Alice Stewart called MSNBC to say she misspoke in an interview on Andrea Mitchell Reports today and did not mean to accuse President Obama of "radical Islamic policies." 

Instead -- and the tape shows this -- she meant to say, and did repeatedly during the same interview, "radical environmentalist policies."

She was trying to explain Santorum's weekend comments questioning the president's "theology."

Stewart called only moments later -- while the show was on the air -- to say she regretted the slip of the tongue, and to please note that she had misspoken and did not realize until it was pointed out to her that she had used the word "Islamic" by mistake.

The slip occurs at about 1:25 in the video below:

NBC's Andrea Mitchell today interviewed Nancy Brinker, founder of the Susan G. Komen Foundation, which has decided to end much of its funding for Planned Parenthood.

Mitchell also interviewed Democratic Sens. Patty Murray (D-WA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who disagree with the foundation's decision.

A transcript is below...

ANDREA MITCHELL, MSNBC HOST:  Women and men across the country are expressing anger and outrage over the Susan G.  Komen Foundation's decision to end funding to Planned Parenthood.  That funding provided breast screening and other breast health services for low-income men and uninsured women.  And the backlash has been fierce online and on the streets.  Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards spoke earlier today. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CECILE RICHARDS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, PLANNED PARENTHOOD:  We were very shocked and really surprised.  I really hope that they will rethink this decision and that we can become partners again. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MITCHELL:  Richards was on with Alex Wagner in the earlier hour.  Ambassador Nancy Brinker is the founder and CEO of Susan G. Komen for the Cure and joins me now. 

Well, the storm has exploded, and you've been in this for a long time.  You started Susan G. Komen in 1982 after the death of your sister and in her name.  And you have raised more money than any other group for breast cancer research. 

Which is why I have to tell you this is shocking for a lot of your long-time supporters.  I want to give you a chance to answer -- let me just tell you what I was confronted with at the gym this morning.  A woman came over to me, I had not met her before, gray-haired woman, probably in her 60s, she was wearing a gray T-shirt, and she said,  "Look at my T-shirt.  It's inside out.  I put it on by accident today.  I'm not going to wear it anymore.  I've torn the label out.  It's a Komen T-shirt." 

These are longtime supporters who have run with you, who have supported you financially and otherwise.  So they're asking, how could this have taken place? 

NANCY BRINKER, FOUNDER AND CEO, SUSAN G. KOMEN FOUNDATION:  Well, Andrea, I frankly think, I don't know, it's a mischaracterization, of certainly, of our goals, our mission, and everything that we do.  In fact, we haven't defunded Planned Parenthood.  We still have three grants that we've committed to, at least for another year, through the end of the grant cycle, and we’re going to --

MITCHELL:  But that's just through the end of the grant cycle.  Let me just put out there first of all, that I have been very identified, an outspoken supporter and participant in the races over the years long before I, myself, ended up being diagnosed with breast cancer.  So I want to just put that out there.  We've known each other a long time as well, both when you were a diplomat at the State Department.

But I come to you today, you know, expressing the anger of a lot of people -- 

BRINKER:  Sure. 

MITCHELL:  Channeling through them, you see it on Twitter, you see it everywhere.  And the fact is, a lot of people are tracing this back.  My colleague, Lisa Myers, reporting last night on "Nightly  News," a lot of people are tracing this back to what some found the surprising hiring of Karen Handel, who ran for governor. We've seen her statements and her strong support.  She said when she was running for office, "I am staunchly and unequivocally pro-life.  Let me be clear, since I am pro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood." 

So, the question is, for a bipartisan organization such as yours, which has a broad-based advisory group, why hire a key staff person who is so strongly, fiercely identified against Planned Parenthood, one of your grantees? 

BRINKER: Well, let me just for the record tell you, Karen did not have anything to do with this decision.  This was decided at the board level and also by our mission, Andrea.  Everything that we get up and do every day is about the mission.  To provide women, vulnerable populations, with care, treatment, and screening. 

And let me just take a step back for a minute. We are not defunding Planned Parenthood.  We have three grants that will go on this year, and they will probably be eligible for the next grant cycle -- 

MITCHELL: But you've said that this is the one group out of 2,000 grantees, Planned Parenthood is the only group that comes under the rubric of this new policy, which is to not fund any organization that is under investigation.  And their investigation, from Congressman Sterns, many believe is trumped up. 

BRINKER:  Well, but there are other investigations in states, number one.  Two --

MITCHELL: They're always the target of an investigation.  That's the way --

BRINKER:  The investigation isn't the only issue, Andrea.  In 2010, we set about creating excellence in our grants.  Not just in our community grants, but in our science grants.  Putting metrics, outcomes, and measures to them so that we can translate all of the science we funded over 30 years. 

Now, part of that includes taking these grants into communities and being excellent grant givers. Many of the grants we were doing with Planned Parenthood do not meet new standards of criteria for how we can measure our results and effectiveness in communities.  That is not to say that if they did meet those criteria, they would not be --

MITCHELL: Their supporters say they are the only ones that have been singled out among these thousands -- 

BRINKER:  No, that's not true.  That's not true. 

MITCHELL:  -- and that their grants for breast screening have nothing to do with any contraceptive or abortion counseling. 

BRINKER:  It's not --

MITCHELL:  That they separate this funding completely. 

BRINKER:  The issue -- that's not the issue.  Because that's not our issue.  Our issue is grant excellence.  They do pass-through grants with their screening grants.  They send people to other facilities.  We want to do more direct-service grants.  You know, we contacted them in the fall, because we've been a longtime partner of Planned Parenthood, almost 20 years. 

MITCHELL:  I know. 

BRINKER:  We've given them over $9 million.  Many of our grants worked for a long period of time. 

This is not -- this is about the restructure of our grant program.  Now, as an NGO and as a leader in the breast cancer space, we have an obligation to the community we serve, to donors, and to this country to translate cancer care in the way we know how. 

MITCHELL:  What do you do about the fact that donors are pulling back?  Some people would say that -- I mean, the anger that's being expressed is going to hit you in the pocketbook.  You have worked so hard to create a bipartisan organization.  Look at your Facebook page.  Your Facebook page has people cutting pink ribbons in half. 

BRINKER:  Well, Andrea --

MITCHELL:  Your branding is at stake. 

BRINKER:  -- all I can tell you is that the responses we're getting are very, very favorable.  People who have bothered to read the material, who have bothered to understand the issues -- again, we work for a mission, every day of our lives.  And our job now is to translate cancer therapy into usable types of therapies that can be accessible for people --

MITCHELL:  Aren't the most vulnerable women going to be affected by this?  Planned Parenthood --

BRINKER:  We are not giving less money in the communities where we're giving money.  Let me just set the record straight: where we are giving money in these communities, we are not taking it back.  We will, with some of them, go to direct service providers. 

But we still have these grants in place with Planned Parenthood, in places where there aren't direct service providers, and they are good grants and they work with us. 

But unless we have a way, again, to measure grants, to create metrics, outcomes in ways that we can say, this works in this community with this vulnerable population, this is what will work.  These are the barriers, this is how it works.  That is our only mission to cure breast cancer. 

MITCHELL:  Are you going to put out the evidence that you have that there's been anything flawed in the way they've delivered services to --

BRINKER:  All we're doing is explaining, again, to our mission, what the criteria for new grants and community-based grants are, for our organization, for the time we are. 

Many of the grants were education-oriented.  We don't need to do that kind of education anymore.  We've done it for 30 years.  Now we need to translate this care into usable clinical care in communities.  That means that if a person's screened, we need to follow.  We need to follow-up the screening.  Did something happen.  Once they go through the Planned Parenthood program, they also have to come to us for additional therapy and care. 

We are trying to advise our community grant program.  And we're doing it, and they've been a longtime partner of ours.  We've notified them of this change, and frankly, we've been very private about it.  And we have not said that we won't accept grants who meet our criteria. 

MITCHELL:  Ambassador Nancy Brinker, thank you very much. 

BRINKER:  Thanks, Andrea.
 
MITCHELL: And now we are joined by Democratic senators Patty Murray of Washington and Barbara Boxer of California. Senator Murray, can you respond. From your information about Planned Parenthood, what is the flaw in the way they are providing services and what are you planning to do about it?
 
SEN. PATTY MURRAY (D-WA): Well, look, this is really a sad day for many of us who have been proud supporters of an organization whose mission has been to save women’s lives, who also know that Planned Parenthood’s mission is to save lives. And the tremendous work they do across this country in providing preventive services so women don’t miss out on their screenings for mammograms and diseases, cancer that can take their lives. So it’s a very sad day and Susan G. Komen has put in place a policy that says directly that they will not provide funding for organizations like Planned Parenthood because of a partisan witch hunt in the House against Planned Parenthood, an investigation. I would ask all the members of Susan G. Komen to reconsider that policy because it’s dangerous for women and it’s dangerous for organizations. If Susan G. Komen comes under partisan investigation here in Washington, DC, they are going to be in violation of their own policy altogether. So we’re putting out a letter along with Senator Lautenberg and 22 senators to ask them to reconsider this terrible decision.
 
MITCHELL: Senator Boxer, why don’t you speak out as well as to where you think we should go from here?
 
SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D-CA): Sure, I listened to everything Ambassador Brinker said and I have to say this is a complete revisionist comment that she’s making about why suddenly Planned Parenthood lost this funding. Which, by the way, has served 170,000 women over the past 5 years, giving them the absolutely life-saving screenings that they deserve to have. And, you know, if you just go back a day ago, two days ago, the official spokespeople for that organization, Susan G. Komen, said the reason was an investigation in the House. Well, could I say this. I was not born yesterday as most of your viewers can tell. And the fact is I’m reminded of the McCarthy era, where somebody said: ‘Oh,’ a congressman stands up, a senator, ‘I’m investigating this organization and therefore people should stop funding them.’ What’s next? Are they going to attack the American Lung Association? The YMCA? The YWCA? This is so sad, as Patty Murray has so eloquently stated, because it’s about women’s health. And we do hope that they will reconsider. But to change the story is not going to work. People know what they said and this means that – unwittingly or wittingly – they’ve put themselves in the middle of a political witch hunt. And that is very very sad.
 
MITCHELL:  Well, it's certainly troubling -- this whole debate is troubling for people on all sides of it.  And Nancy Brinker is still here.  Let me just ask you -- I know we're out of time, but is there any chance that you would respond to the senators and change the policy? 

BRINKER:  Well, yeah, I'm troubled that it's been labeled as political.  This is not a political decision.  We operate from one set of standards every day, and it is to our mission.  And if we don't advance and revise and make grants that meet the mission and bring real care to vulnerable populations, we won't be doing our job.  Again, these grants --

MITCHELL: I think there's a lot of communication --

BRINKER:  There's a lot of communication –

MITCHELL:  that needs to go back and forth --

BRINKER:  -- that needs to go back and forth, you bet. 

MITCHELL:  We will follow up with you, the senators.  Twenty-two senators have now signed that letter, and we will continue to report this story and there'll be more throughout the day on NBC and MSNBC as well.  And we'll be right back.

Despite his likely third-place finish in New Hampshire, Jon Huntsman will stay in the race, his campaign tells First Read.

"Of course, [We] were left for dead just three days ago, and look how much ground we've gained in that short time," Huntsman spokesman Tim Miller said when asked if Huntsman will continue on even if he finishes behind Ron Paul. "We are very excited about our momentum."

Huntsman senior advisor John Weaver says despite Romney's win, the campaign believes Mitt Romney leaves New Hampshire as a weaker frontrunner because of what Weaver calls Romney's verbal flubs over the last few days.

Reached just after NBC News projected Paul would come in second, Weaver said, "Our fundraising has picked up since the debate; our donor community is very excited about the way we finished the campaign, and we are heading to South Carolina."

Weaver added that Huntsman's message in his speech tonight is that he put "Country First" -- and Romney put politics first.

Southern Baptist leader Dr. Richard Land said on MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports" today that social conservatives have been on the phone since Iowa talking about how to get Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry to drop out before it is too late to stop Mitt Romney.

These social conservatives will be meeting in Texas next weekend -- and he said they would be talking to Gingrich and Perry at some point about coming together behind Rick Santorum before it is too late.

He acknowledged, however, that it's unlikely they can persuade them to drop out before South Carolina, which means their effort to unite against Romney could come too late.

"If you took the vote that Santorum got, and you took the vote that Gingrich got and you took the vote that Perry got, and you took the vote that Michele Bachmann got, you would have out-voted Romney two to one in Iowa," Land said.

"But because of the division among the conservative candidates, there is real concern that Romney will win without having to face one concentrated effort of a conservative challenger. And what I've heard over and over again, [in] these discussions, is we don't want to make the same mistake this time that we made with Huckabee in 2008."

Land continued. "People didn't rally around Huckabee as the, you know, social conservative alternative, because they didn't think he could win until it was too late. And McCain had the nomination sewed up. Now it is a little more diverse this time, and we don't need to make the decision as early. What I hear conservatives saying is, 'We need to keep talking about this, and we need to let Gingrich and Santorum and Perry continue to make their case.' But at some point, earlier rather than later, we need to try to unite all of the conservative -- social conservative forces, around one candidate and have this great debate that so many people want to see between the Romney and the non-Romney."

Earlier today, NBC's Andrea Mitchell interviewed GOP front-runner Mitt Romney from Iowa on a host of different topics. Below are some of the exchanges and answers:

On his prospects in Iowa:

Well, I want to do well here. I don't think you can predict who's going to do well in Iowa; it’s a state where you don’t know who's going to come to the caucus or how they're going to make up their minds. But you do hope to get to some of the delegates from Iowa. I need some delegates from New Hampshire and then we go on to South Carolina and Florida. It’s going to probably be a very long road.

On the pro-Romney Super PAC TV ad attacks on Newt Gingrich:

If you can't stand the heat in this little kitchen wait until you get Obama's Hell's Kitchen! It’s going to be a battle of ideas. But, of course, recognize that campaigns are going to point out distinctions between the candidates.

On Romney's charge that President Obama has "apologized" for America:

Mitchell: You say that you wouldn't apologize for America, fact check has never found any incidents where Obama has apologized for America...

Romney: Well when he went to the Arab world in his first weeks in office, and said that American had dictated to other nations, that America had been divisive, these kinds of words are certainly apologetic in tone and nature.

It was deemed the apology tour by many. The London Times reported that this president had been more critical of his own country on foreign soil than nay American president in history. And so many of us -- appropriately I believe -- saw this as a apology by the president for the United States of America of which I disagree.

On whether he'll release his tax returns, especially if he becomes president:

Romney: That's not something that I’m thinking about today but never say never.

Mitchell: But if you were elected would you release? Every president does.

Romney: You know ,if I become president, then I'll think about that. [Laughs.] It’s a little premature for me to be talking about that.

Senior U.S. officials say they are deeply concerned by reports of the seizure of smuggled radioactive material heading into Tehran and commend the Russian security services for seizing the material.

That said, an early read by U.S. intelligence is that the main purpose of this isotope, Sodium-22, is for medical diagnostics. It's used for radiation therapy -- and officials say the materials can be bought legally, so it does not have implications for suspected weapons development.

"We don't know whether the receipient was a government agency," one agency said. "It's unclear why they would want to smuggle it in; we are still investigating, but it does not appear that this involves Iran's nuclear program."

In an interview NBC's Andrea Mitchell, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi acknowledged that the debt deal -- which she voted for -- was a "bad deal," but that it's now time to move on. 

"It’s a bad deal but it’s a done deal, and it’s time for us to move on," Pelosi said in the interview, which aired on MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports." "It’s the basis on which we are going to proceed and we have to get on with it."

Could President Obama have done a better job negotiating? Pelosi's answer:

I think the president was great. But, again, what is the point of talking about what is finished? On anything that happens around here, any one of us could have done it better, right? We could have written it better, we could have, whatever it is. But the fact is the president wanted a balanced, bipartisan agreement at the end of the day.

MITCHELL: But he didn’t get a balance. There’s no taxes in it.

PELOSI:  That’s right, nobody knows that better than I or perhaps some do, but I fully appreciate that. But again, this is about how we go to the next steps: jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. 

Another interesting exchange came when Mitchell asked if Congress was broken.

PELOSI: This is the marketplace of ideas. This is where people come and represent their constituents on the short term, every two years. And so it’s always been a contentious people. People had duels in those days, canings, and the rest.

MITCHELL: But how do you feel now to have people saying things like Congress is ridiculous, it’s messy?

PELOSI: Well, I agree with that. I think that the whole process has been -- makes people angry, makes people disgusted. And I don’t think that we should have the legitimate debate about budget priorities with the sword of Damocles over our head. If not, we’re going to default. I don’t think that that was the appropriate dynamic, but that’s done, and now we’re moving on. 

And Congress for its whole entirety has been an institution that has been mocked. The real -- the difference now is in communication, real time, in fact, quicker than real time, before anybody has a chance to process what’s going on, people have formed an opinion and gone on. It’s a very healthy, good thing. 

In an interview today on MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports," House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan signaled some flexibility on what he called "constructive ideas" that are now being discussed in the debt debate -- and said it's his judgment that they will find a way to resolve the issue.

My own judgment, based upon all the various conversations that are occurring, are that we will find a way to deal with this issue," Ryan said. And I think there are constructive conversations that are occurring -- both sides of the rotunda, both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue. And I do believe at the end of the day cooler heads are going to prevail."

He added, "The Biden talks, I thought, were probably the most productive exercise of all these exercises that have been going on around here. That put actual cuts, well, that's a longer story but because of the insistence for tax increases. But I still believe that those talks were producing some results on spending cuts."

Asked why he and the Republican caucus wouldn't want to pocket the spending cuts the president has already offered -- and work out the details later -- he said:

"That's what I want to do. I want to grab the spending cuts we can... I think that's what we're going to do at the end of the day here... I think that's what we should do is grab the kind of spending cuts we can right now." 

He went on to say: "Spending cuts in the so-called Gang of Six plan are extremely vague. They're sort of a promise that Senate Democrats will pass spending cuts later where there are no details and specificity. I've seen that game played around here before. So I want to get spending cuts under control. The other thing is with the Gang of Six - it's saying we're going to lower tax rates, which there's becoming a bipartisan consensus to that -- which I'm really encouraged about -- but keep the loopholes and raise revenues. These are conflicting mandates. They don't add up."

Asked about the McConnell-Reid negotiations, Ryan said:

"Since we're in the middle of these conversations right now, I just don't think it's in our interest to sort of speculate what our fallback plan is going to be. No offense. I just don't think it's good to negotiate through the media, as we're trying to get significant spending cuts to deal with this issue. There are lots of different fallback plans that are being offered out there. I assume that there will be a fallback plan in place. What that's going to be or what we want to agree to, it's just not in our interest to say that right now. But I do believe that we will have cooler heads prevail and prevent a default from happening."

White House adviser David Plouffe at a Bloomberg News breakfast this morning said that "any significant budget deal has to be revenue-positive."

At least by the time it all kicks in.

Plouffe's comments draw a line against Republican demands most recently made by Sen. John Cornyn that any tax measures in the agreement have to be "revenue neutral."

A capacity crowd gathered last night at Watkins Recreation Center Park for what proved to be an historic night of semi-competitive women's charity softball.

Select female members of Congress faced off against the Washington press corps -- for charity. All proceeds of the event went to the Young Survival Coalition, an organization which works on behalf of young women with breast cancer.

Under the setting sun, the captain for the congressional team -- Sen. Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY) -- took to the mound with a laser focus, vanquishing press corps batters with no mercy and helping the members out to an early lead.

While this reporter was told the match between the two sides is often a quiet affair, a palpable tension hung heavy in the air as the innings wore on. Press coach Dave Espo (Associated Press) exchanged words with the umpires on numerous close calls drawing jeers from the members bench.

Deadlocked at 4-4 going into the final inning, a hush fell over the nearly 800 fans in attendance. Gillibrand stoically approached the mound and worked through the press side without incident.

As the members took their final turn at bat, even VIP members Nancy Pelosi (donning a celebratory cheerleader's pom-pom) and Steny Hoyer clamored for a view of the deciding at-bats.

Gillibrand was robbed of a single with an unforgettable grab in the outfield by a spry press member, and the congressional team was down to its last two outs.

In a questionable move by press coaches Espo and Carl Hulse (New York Times), the press corps intentionally walked two members -- hoping to take the bats out of the members' hands. With two runners on, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) strode to the plate with the unmistakable look of determination in her eyes. Capitalizing on a pitch straight down the middle, Wasserman Schultz ripped a blazing liner between the second baseman and shortstop to drive home the winning run. Met by Sen. Gillibrand and the entire members team, Wasserman Schultz was mobbed at home plate by the female members of Congress, where they were presented with a pink and gold trophy to commemorate the victory.

With the sun finally vanished from the June sky, both teams shook hands and exchanged pleasantries. And as NBC's Andrea Mitchell -- who did the play-by-play for the event -- reminded everyone, the real winner was the Young Survival Coalition and the brave women every day fighting breast cancer.

Pelosi closed the evening, thanking all the participants and fans and praised her fellow members for a rousing performance, asserting, "When Democrats and Republicans work together, they can do great things."

Tea Party Express director Amy Kremer thinks that Congresswoman Michele Bachmann "shined" at last night’s Republican debate which came as no surprise. "The Tea Party movement's been seeing her shine for a while," Kremer said. "She's been a loud voice at the front of this movement for a while. I think it was a good introduction for her."

So is Michele Bachmann the group’s candidate of choice? Amy Kremer told Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC that while Bachmann's views on social issues meshed with those of the other candidates, social conservatives "have their own movement."

"The Tea Party movement is focused on the fiscal issues...that's why there are Democrats and Independents that identify with the movement. They, too, want fiscal responsibility. That's the glue that binds us together."

Though Bachmann created the House Tea Party caucus, Kremer says her group is not endorsing any candidate ahead of their Tea Party debate in September. She added, "Quite honestly, I don't think all the players are on the field right now."

Looking to the Tea Party debate in September, Kremer hopes that "going forward that we really see somebody come forward...and show their courage and what it's going to take to get this country back on track."