Freshman Anchorage Republican Rep. Andrew Halcro had listened to a speech by Rep. Al Kookesh, an Angoon Democrat, on Thursday. In that speech, Kookesh gave his opinion on how Natives perceive the Republican Party in Alaska. He said Republicans appear to laud decisions that undermine tribal interests and scoff when a court decides in favor of Native interests.

Halcro, rebutting those remarks, called them some of "the most hateful and disrespectful rhetoric" he'd ever heard.

Kookesh said he was talking about perceptions.

There is racism. There are stereotypical views about Natives. It's his right, as it is Halcro's, the Native legislator said, to voice their views on such subjects.

Both Rep. Joe Green, an Anchorage Republican and majority leader of the House, and Anchorage Democrat and minority leader Rep. Ethan Berkowitz, cautioned Halcro about making divisive comments on the floor of the House.

The last thing the House needs is someone playing with matches, Berkowitz said. "There's enough gasoline in this room to set the state on fire," he said. The words spoken on the House floor illustrate the likelihood that the differences between rural and urban Alaska will become evident this session as the Legislature and the governor work on finding ways to cut spending.

Last year, issues such as subsistence, tribal sovereignty and school funding served to emphasize that the state has two souls - one defined by streets, the other by its Bush nickname.

This year, with budget cuts in the offing, the differences between the two Alaskas will likely be underlined again. Some rural legislators are worried the budget will be hacked disproportionally. One issue in particular, an $18 million program that subsidizes energy costs in the Bush, has rural representatives worried.

Some urban legislators believe rural Alaska isn't pulling its weight when it comes to funding state spending, and say it's time for Bush residents to form boroughs to fund help pay for community programs and projects.

Looking at where legislators are from on a map, it's clear Alaska's urban areas have a larger chorus of voices signing their song at the Capitol than do the state's rural areas.

According to the state Department of labor, the state's population has gone from mostly rural to mostly urban over the years. In 1920, only 5.6 percent of Alaskans lived in communities of 2,500 people or more. In 1940, that figure had risen to 24 percent and in 1960, 38 percent.

By 1997, the number grew to more than 70 percent. When election districts are drawn up, population is the most important consideration. So, as the state has become more urban, so has the Legislature.

The differences in representation within the Legislature can be of stark contrast.

Anchorage, with city limits encompassing 1,965 square miles, has about 258,782 people and 21 members in the Legislature.

Sen. Georgianna Lincoln, a Rampart Democrat, and two House members represent about 27,000 people living in some 90 communities within a 236,000-square-mile rural election district.

Lincoln's district, shaped like an upside down "u," is bigger than every state in the United States other than Texas and Alaska.

"It's the lucky horseshoe," she said. "I call it massive."

Last year, asking politicians about whether or not there was a split between rural Alaska and urban Alaska elicited responses from rural representatives that there was, and from urban representatives that there wasn't.

Rep. Gail Phillips, a Homer Republican, said "divide" and "split" are words that come with a negative connotation. They're reflective of a perception rather than a reality of what's really going on.

Rural and urban Alaska are different, she said. Homer was Alaska's 13th largest city in 1997 with about 4,100 residents. What's important to her constituents isn't necessarily important to those in another community.

Legislative agendas are different and the depth of understanding of specific issues vary based on where in Alaska you are, she said, but that doesn't support the perception some have that there's a feud taking place.

"I do agree that different legislators have different priorities . . . but that doesn't equate to the negativism that the press has made it to be," she said. "It's an easy message for the (Democratic) minority to deliver, but it's not real."

State funding, Phillips said, has been pretty even, though it costs more to do less in the Bush. Alaska's rural areas have seen vast improvements in infrastructure during the first 40 years the state Legislature has met, she said. There are, for example, airports in most villages. Water and sewer improvements have been made in many communities.

Phillips believes once rural Alaska's basic needs are met, the perception urban Alaska doesn't care about rural Alaska will fade.

"I definitely feel that the more the state does to improve infrastructure - electricity, transportation, water and sewer . . . Then we can change that perception," she said.

But some of her Capitol colleagues don't think it's that simple. "There always has been a bit of an urban-rural divide," Lincoln said. "There wouldn't have been a Bush caucus otherwise." Over the years, she said, the divide has grown.

Last year, successful efforts to establish an English-only government and proposals to change the way schools are funded widened the gap. Lincoln described those legislative affairs alternatively as a "spike through the heart" and a "slap in the face" of Bush Alaska courtesy of those living in the state's concentrated urban areas.

For people living in rural Alaska, she said, safe water supplies have yet to be developed and conditions often described as Third World exist.

When lawmakers say there is no divide or talk of a partnership of rural and urban interests, Lincoln said, it's a matter of people with, failing to notice those without.

"I think they have to say that (there's no divide) or else they would have to deal with reality," Lincoln said. "Sometimes, those that have don't see those that do not. It's just putting blinders on."

At least there's a wide divide in opinion over whether or not there's a divide. When urban legislators say there isn't a division and Bush legislators say there is, both are telling the truth, said Clive Thomas, a political science professor at the University of Alaska Southeast.

"It's one of those really complicated problems," he said, that doesn't come with black or white descriptions.

Thomas said there's no easy way to bring the Bush and urban Alaska together politically or to point to one or two factors that contribute to the gulf of understanding that separate them. However, he said, the gap will widen.

"It will grow even more after the year 2000," he said. "The population of urban Alaska is growing faster."

Along with a lack of understanding of living conditions, there are distorted perceptions of spending balance and, perhaps most importantly, basic cultural differences separating the urban dweller from the rural Alaskan, he said. Added to the mix is something few want to talk about, Thomas said.

"Be honest about it," he said. "It doesn't help to solve the issue, but there's racism on both sides."

Why should Anchorage representatives care about rural Alaska? According to those representing the Bush, rural Alaska contributes massively to the state's economy. Jobs relating to the oil, fishing and tourism industries abound in Anchorage though little oil comes from that area and most fish are caught elsewhere.

And few people travel to Alaska just to see Anchorage's Earthquake Park or zoo. Tourists want to see Denali, the misty fjords of Southeast, the Brooks Range or the lakes and rivers feeding Bristol Bay.

Why should the Bush care about the Railbelt? The state's wealth is largely supported by the infrastructure there. Without people, buildings and roads to bring the state's resources to market, it would be far more difficult to turn them into money.

Sen. Sean Parnell, an Anchorage Republican and co-chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said legislators do have to work for their own constituents, but there are also overriding, common agendas, such as promoting the welfare of children, that are important to all lawmakers.

"There's more representation for more population," he said. "(But) we not only represent our district, we have to do what's best for Alaska. A lot of us are looking out for each other."

But sometimes the differences between groups are used to promote politics rather than discussion, Parnell said.

"Wherever there's a division on any issue, people will exploit it to get what they want," he said. "The question for me is: Do we fall prey to that or do we work together? It depends on who you're talking with whether or not there's a problem."

To say that there's a split between urban and rural Alaska is easy to say but difficult to explain, he said. Everyone in the state contributes something to the equation.

"There are 651,000 reasons for it," Parnell said. "Each one is different." Rep. Reggie Joule, House minority whip and a Kotzebue Democrat, said there are areas of agreement between urban and rural Alaska.

But there are also divisions.

"Yeah. I think there are in some areas, but not all," he said. "One that comes to mind is subsistence."

He said that for rural Alaskans, the hunting and fishing preference they won with the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act is key. That many urban legislators don't support changing the state's constitution to allow for a rural preference has pushed a wedge between the two Alaskas, he said. At the same time, neither rural nor urban people in general want to see the federal government take over fisheries management on close to two-thirds of the state's rivers.

Where both urban and rural interests want the best possible education for their children, they agree. How to fund schools, however, has split the two. He said urban Alaska doesn't understand rural Alaska.

"To really understand it, I think, in my opinion, you have to live it," he said. "For the most part, I think the communities in rural areas are still trying to get caught up with what other people take for granted."

It works both ways, Joule said with a smile. Rural residents don't understand "why so many people want to live in one place," he said.

The representative democracy that portions the state up politically, Joule said, doesn't fairly represent the importance of the Bush.

"Is it representative democracy to have the resources (come) from one part of the state and have that area have so little say?" he said. "We're making policies, decisions in this state that affect everybody, yet the people here making those policies haven't the experience of what it takes to live in those areas."

A visit to a rural community, he said, gives only an inkling of what it's like to live there, Joule said. Using a honey bucket is one thing, he said, dumping it out is another.

Reflecting upon his experience as a legislator, Green, the Anchorage Republican, said he's seen an extra effort by urban representatives to satisfy the needs of the Bush. He said it isn't urban Alaska that's wedging open a rift between Alaskans. "If there is (a divide), the rivalry is coming from the Bush to urban and not the other way around," Green said.

Anchorage, and the other larger communities in the state, have the amenities that come with population centers - from cheaper groceries and utilities to water treatment plants. Anchorage also has street gangs and traffic jams.

If you want those things, come and get them, he said. Nobody has to live in the Bush. It's apparent to him that rural Alaskans, and Natives in particular, can compete for jobs in the cities. Rural Alaskans, he said, sometimes make "equality" arguments that look like "special treatment."

Blaming urban Alaska for the Bush's problems isn't right. Anchorage representatives aren't out to get anyone, he said. "I don't believe that," he said. "Alaska's constitution is clear: `We will not put one person ahead of another person.'

"To say that we're deprived because of where you to live . . . That's a cop-out," Green said. "They're there because they want to be there. They don't have to be there."

Green said the rural-urban split won't be solved by spending, it needs to be addressed on an individual level. Alaskans should decide what kind of lifestyle they want to live - urban and congested, rural and unpaved - and attempt to find their niche, Green said.

Sitting on the edge of the gulf between urban and rural Alaska is freshman Rep. Carl Morgan, an Aniak Republican. He represents a rural district and is a member of the Republican-led majority.

"Last session there was a division," he said. "I think everyone got into a position where they got caught up by the press."

He told voters during his campaign that he'd bridge the rural-urban gap by promoting understanding. "It's going to take education on both parts," he said. Having lived and worked in Anchorage for 20 years, he said, gave him a first-hand perspective on both worlds. Stereotypical conceptions by residents of rural and urban Alaska, he said, contribute to the problem, but the world isn't perfect. Perceptions will always be skewed a bit, but things can be made better.

For example, he said, the idea that rural residents can just decide to move isn't completely true. To ask someone to leave their home, their ties to their past so they can have things like a sewer system, is simplistic.

"To say we should just get up and move, that is a kind of cop-out," Morgan said. There's a disagreement there, he said with a smile. There's something for him to work on. Butting heads won't lead to a solution to the problems facing the villages along the Kuskokwim River, he said, or Anchorage.

Bridging the gap - political, economic, cultural - will take time, said Thomas, the political science professor.

"You got to start with kids," he said. "I don't know if you ever will close it completely."