NJ: What kind of policy changes or alternatives could Republicans present but haven't yet?

Huntsman: We as a party -- unlike the [Newt] Gingrich revolution of the early '90s, where there was a good, solid set of policy recommendations that the party could rally around -- we don't have that right now. And because we don't have that, we're trading at an all-time low in terms of public opinion, probably lower than any other time since Watergate.

NJ: You recently said the GOP "isn't moving anywhere right now." How do you think Republicans should move forward?

Huntsman: There is a course, and it's the same course the Democrats had to take 10 years ago. Things go in cycles, historically speaking, and we'll be back in action over time; it's just the pathway that we choose at this point and whether or not that's a short-term comeback or a long-term comeback.

It must begin with a meritocracy of ideas. You've got to have ideas competing in the marketplace under the Republican banner that are playing out in the incubators of democracy called the states.

NJ: Would you consider yourself more moderate than other Republicans when it comes to social issues?

Huntsman: I don't do well with tags. I'm a traditional Republican. People hired me to balance budgets, to make the economy work and to find fixes for health care and energy and transportation, and that's what I spend every waking hour doing. They didn't hire me to be a moralizer.

NJ: Why have you chosen to speak out in favor of civil unions?

Huntsman: Well, I didn't speak out on them, I was asked. And that's typically how journalism works. You're asked a question, you answer it and then it becomes a story. I have long been in favor of fairness and equality as long as I've been in office, and as long as I am in office that's exactly what I'll stand for.

I'm a traditionalist when it comes to gay marriage. I believe [marriage] should be between a man and a woman. I believe marriage ceremonies are sacred and they draw strongly on all sorts of traditions. But subordinate to that, we've not done a very good job in providing others who are in nontraditional relationships equal treatment. And I think there's probably room for improvement there.

NJ: There has been movement in states around the country toward gay marriage, and McCain campaign director Steve Schmidt recently called for the party to support such marriages. What's your reaction to Schmidt's comments?

Huntsman: We have a real need to broaden our base as a party. When you look at the demographics of the Republican Party, we've lost a good many voters and a good many voters have gone independent. And you have to ask yourself a question: Why is the independent "party" larger than either the Republican or Democratic Party?...

The Republican Party is going to have to make some strides to win independents back into the fold, and that's not going to be an easy thing to do. But if we do something about showing a sense of fairness and equality toward all citizens, that might be a good first step.

NJ: What do you mean by "something"?

Huntsman: In our case -- at least in my case -- I do think that civil unions is one approach that does speak to equality and fairness. A lot of people -- and I would put myself in that category -- are traditionalists when it comes to traditional marriages between a man and a woman, but I think there is more that we can do to prove the point that we are a party that does believe in fairness.

NJ: After calling out Republicans for their "gratuitous political carping," you said the party needs to make bold moves on issues like health care and energy. How should the federal government go about passing energy legislation that will help Western states?

Huntsman: The most important thing we can do is to embrace a meaningful incentive that actually attracts the manufacturers of capital equipment, and then allow the producers of energy the opportunity to build new, world-class facilities. That takes land, and that takes an updated and enhanced grid system in order to deliver the energy. And it's something that is very difficult to do on your own, state by state. It's something that really does require federal assistance and support because it crosses borders.

NJ: Some Republicans do not believe that carbon is a contributing factor to global warming. What is your stance on that?

Huntsman: Every physics department in the country, every meteorology department in the country, every academy of sciences in the Western world, has pretty much weighed in on this as an issue. There is a substantial body of science that would lead to: This is an emerging problem and the fact that humans do contribute to the problem. Therefore, it's up to us as policymakers to figure out what to do about it.

There are a lot of different approaches that we can take. You have to see it in free-market terms. You have to deal with it realistically, knowing that you can't put a burden on consumers who are already carrying the load of high energy costs. But you do have to deal realistically with emissions.

NJ: How do you see religion and its role in politics evolving over the next four years?

Huntsman: I think, as we've seen in elections in recent history, people want their president to humbly serve the voters who put him in office, to maintain a viable and competitive economy, to manage a strong and confident foreign policy and, above all, prepare the way for the next generation of Americans. That is first and foremost what voters want out of their elected officials.

NJ: So are you saying that religion as an issue has become less important?

Huntsman: I think religion for most people is a highly personal thing. That will play out as it will.

NJ: Do you think the country is ready for a Mormon president?

Huntsman: I think ultimately that is a real possibility -- just as it was for a Catholic in 1960. Barriers are broken all the time.

NJ: Your name has surfaced as a possible 2012 presidential candidate. In fact, John McCain recently mentioned your name first as a contender on "Meet The Press." Why do you think your name is coming up as a possibility?

Huntsman: Could be the total depths of despair of the party. [Laughs]. Hey, listen, I think we really are at a point in time where a lot of names are going to be thrown out, and it doesn't necessarily mean that they're being thrown out in a meaningful fashion. It's just -- we're looking for ideas and people associated with ideas that might be able to take us forward in a successful way. And it's hard to know where that's going to go.

It's presumptuous for me or anybody else to say they're lining up or they're going to be a serious contender in the future, because it must be tied to real ideas and real solutions, to preeminence and not just partisanship.