If the rise of grassroots activism by way of the Internet is indicative of anything, it may be that there is a widespread sense among Americans of government getting away from the people. Some of the newer political movements have only indirectly to do with President Bush or the Iraq war: Take Unity08, launched by one-time partisan operatives now seeking a third way out of the red state/blue state head-butting of the past six years. Or the somewhat mysterious HotSoup.com, which promises to restore civility and nuance to national debates by weeding out the wingnuts on both sides of the political spectrum.

Credit former New Jersey governor and Environmental Protection Agency chief Christine Todd Whitman with leading the way. Whitman famously broke from her own party in February 2005 with her book, "It's My Party Too," in which she bemoaned the direction Republicans -- led by Bush -- were taking the country. Soon after she launched a political action committee, IMP-PAC, dedicated to bringing the party back to its conservative principles of fiscal restraint and liberty, while being open to "diverse opinions on social issues."

In a recent interview with NationalJournal.com's Jane Roh, Whitman described how the GOP got off track, how it can be brought back and what she plans to do about it this election cycle and next. Edited excerpts follow. For previous Insider Interviews, click here.

Q: Do you think it's fair to say your book was somewhat prescient, having come out before Hurricane Katrina and the Harriet Miers nomination, when there was a huge revolt in President Bush's base? Are people saying that you called it?

Whitman: Yes, there are people who are coming and saying that, but it's more that they're saying, "We've got to stop it, we've got to figure out what we're doing." We need to get our parties back to the center where they can talk to the majority of the American people rather than just the fringe. I don't take a whole lot of satisfaction in a lot of what happened.

This book came out in paperback in February and the new preface reflects the things that have happened in that year. It doesn't give me a good feeling to have been right because the problem is, it's not good for the party, and it certainly hasn't been good for the president.

Q: In terms of the problems the president has had and the midterms that are coming up, what is the way forward for the party?

Whitman: It would be to back off these socially divisive issues and start talking about the things that people really care about. People are really tired of elections being centered around flag-burning or gay marriage. They really want to hear some of these other issues being talked about, and we ought to recognize the importance of those issues and say to people we recognize the importance of those issues.

Newt Gingrich had some very good points in the Contract With America, in that it gave the public a focus on some broader issues. We talked about balancing the budget, things like that -- those are real concerns to people today, and I think we need to express those more fully. Somehow they have to explain the fact that the president went to the NAACP this year for the first time in five years, but that it wasn't just because the midterm elections look so close.

Q: In terms of getting moderates and swing voters out to the polls, isn't this still the battle for the mushy middle?

Whitman: That's why I was so surprised by the reaction we got after the book and the Web site. Literally in the last paragraph on the last page, I said if I get people to agree with me that we have a problem here and I don't do anything more than that I haven't accomplished anything. So we started with just a Web site and a post office box, and we've had almost 15 million hits on that Web site, raised more than a million dollars, we're going to playing in those campaigns as an advisory board of over 55, we're in 29 states now with formal affiliates. We have members from every state in the union.

It's not about a single issue, it's not about a candidate, which is the way you traditionally get people engaged. It's about an idea. People are responding to that more and more -- Republicans and Democrats. Democrats sense the same thing happening when they see what's happening with Joe Lieberman, they look at the liberal blogs that are taking on Hillary Clinton for not being liberal enough, they see the same kinds of concerns.

Q: Well, one thing that's kind of notable about recent polling is you see Rudy Giuliani at the top of the list for Republican nominees in 2008.

Whitman: If you had an open primary, I think he'd win the nomination.

Q: Right, but he would undoubtedly face obstacles. He once had a gay man for a roommate, for one thing.

Whitman: But that's my point. If you had an open primary, if everybody just could vote, you'd have a Giuliani or a McCain or a Ridge or a Lingle. Rudy Giuliani, for all he is the world's mayor, not just America 's mayor these days, couldn't get through the process. He is too socially moderate for the litmus test people who unfortunately right now have the access to the power in determining who the candidates are going to be, and that's what's so frustrating.

Q: Could you explain why social conservatives have so much power in the political process?

Whitman: They've been focused on this since the 1960s. They have been focused on the way to get power is you start at the local level. They understood that it does. And they've used no tools that aren't available to the rest of us -- they're just absolutely determined to make their impact felt.

So they've voted in primaries. Moderates tend not to vote in primaries. And so many people who are in the center say I'm an independent, I don't want to have a party label so I'm an independent. So that's all well and good, but then you're stuck with somebody else's choices when it comes to the general election in most states where you can't vote [in the primary] if you're an independent. They have been relentless in their pursuit of this and they have done it in a very strategic, very smart way.

You've got to be big enough to accommodate people who think differently on some of these issues. And if you share the basic Republican philosophy and really believe that that's important, and that would include some of the things we've gotten away from, like balanced budgets and controlling government spending, then you want to be in a position to implement that in government, and you can't do it if you don't win. And you're not going to win with the same kind of Republican candidate in New York as you're going to in Florida , Arizona or California .

Q: What kind of reaction did you get from Democrats?

Whitman: I get a very positive reaction from Democrats. People said, we need the same discussion in our party -- "I'm a Democrat and I agree with most of what you're saying. I'm a Democrat and it's time for us to have this discussion." So it's not limited to the one party.

And that's why Unity08, which Hamilton Jordan and Doug Bailey have put together... for a unity or fusion ticket in '08, a Republican and a Democrat, in either order, president or vice president, and they're trying to do it all through the Internet. When you get two respected, longtime political operatives like this saying, "Wait a minute, we've got to send a wake-up call to our parties," you know there's something going on.

Q: How much of this do you blame on Bush, and how much of this is Karl Rove? How difficult have they made it for the Republican Party for the next 10 or 20 years?

Whitman: Over the last five years we have seen those that I would call the social fundamentalists empowered as they have never been empowered before. Whether it was Karl's weekly lunches that he has with representatives of those groups, or the president using his veto for the first time in five and a half years on embryonic stem-cell research, those groups now feel mightily empowered, and the people that they brought in, the way they've run campaigns, were enormously successful. I mean, nobody's been more successful at doing the job of political operative in the White House than Karl Rove in a long time. It's the first time -- in 2004 -- the first time that an incumbent president has actually added to their majority in the House. So he's been brilliant at what it was he was sent to do.

But they've done it with a political strategy, with things like putting gay marriage on the ballot in Ohio . So we get elections that have become very bitter and very personal and very emotional, and at the end of the day you have people that get elected who don't just not trust the other person, they don't like them, and people don't work together the way they used to. And it is a very different political scene in Washington than it ever was.

That's a concern I always had. You can win elections up to a point using this strategy, but it's at what price governance? I don't believe it is the long-term strategy for building a dynasty.

Q: But there are a couple things that I can't see going away in the foreseeable future, like the role of religion in politics. People who are proclaiming their faith, even though it might be doubtful -- they have to do the song and dance. So how does it go away?

Whitman: In the past few weeks, I had people come up to me and say, "I am a pro-life, born-again Christian, and I don't like what's happening." I don't like the amount of religion in politics today, I don't like the fact that issues are being seen as anti-Christian if you don't go along with the administration on something. They're very uncomfortable, not monolithic. And I believe that if you stop having the pressure from the top and stop using this as a device that allows you to get elected, you'll see the public come back to a central point.

We're a nation based on faith, there's nothing wrong with that. And we shouldn't be embarrassed to say it. It's just that we were never a nation based on one faith -- and that's where difference counts.

Q: Do you think at this point, as a pro-choice Republican, it might be better to get rid of Roe and let the states decide because it's become such a lethal political weapon?

Whitman: I hate to lose the overall protection of Roe v. Wade. It sends the message that is of great concern for me as someone who cares about a woman's ability to make certain decisions for herself. I don't know what's going to happen, you don't know how that an ultimate case will be brought to court and how they will argue it. There are a number of states today that make it very, very difficult for a woman to terminate a pregnancy, getting to the point where it's only somebody who is very well to do who can actually afford it.

Q: And that's another point, which is we have Roe on the books, but in some states they may as well not have Roe on the books, because it's the battle to whittle it down to the point where it's practically meaningless.

Whitman: The real thing I wish we'd do is instead of arguing over Roe v. Wade is start to argue over how we can prevent unwanted pregnancy. I don't know a single pro-choice person who is pro-abortion. It's just not people saying, "Come on everybody let's go have an abortion when you feel a little tired of carrying a child around." That's not it; that's ridiculous. And yet you have people out there saying, "Oh, you use it as a method of birth control." Well that is truly the exception to the rule.

Q: Jumping ahead to '08, it's almost been written on the ballot, McCain vs. Clinton . These are two moderates. Wouldn't that be a good thing from your point of view?

Whitman: I wouldn't mind seeing John McCain as the presidential nominee at all. If John McCain or Rudy Giuliani -- they would be good candidates to come out there, and I've always predicted that Hillary would be the Democratic nominee, and I would bet that Condi Rice will be our vice-presidential nominee.

Q: Would you like to see that happen?

Whitman: Yes. I have great respect for her intellect and her common sense and her balance.

Q: Would you ever consider going back? If we see a President McCain and he asks you to be, say, secretary of state?

Whitman: You never say never. And if it were the right kind of thing where you could really make a difference in tune with the person who was asking, you'd have to consider it. Believe me, EPA was not my choice of a place if I were to pick a Cabinet spot to go, simply because I knew the limitations of a regulatory agency and how difficult it would be with a Republican Congress as well, but it was serving the country, and it was serving the country at a national level. If a president-elect asks you to do something, it's pretty hard to turn him down.

Q: Will we be seeing a more visible role from you as the election approaches?

Whitman: Well, I'm certainly going to be helping as many candidates as I can, and IMP-PAC will be. I do have a business, and my partners want me to work on that as well, so I have to keep doing that, but yes. I will be out and getting around and helping, and primarily the thing that sets us apart from something like Main Street Partnership -- with whom we share information and try to work together -- and the other more centrist groups is we really are focusing on the state and local level. I'll help, obviously, and will support congressional and senatorial candidates, there's no question about that. But I really see our ability to make a difference is at the state and local level.