Establishment House Coons, Loyal Uniparty Attack Dogs, Unleash on Rep. David Eastman

There’s often a division between those who are content with maintaining the system as it is and those who push for real change. Some people become so comfortable with the way things are that they end up protecting the very structures that hold others back, rather than challenging them. When someone stands on principle, it’s easy to criticize from a safe place within the system, but true leadership comes from pushing for change, even if it makes you unpopular. If you’re more focused on keeping the status quo and tearing down those who stand alone, you might just be serving the system instead of fighting for something better.

When I first encountered Mike Coons, he wasn’t standing on his own principles but was being tagged in by his political masters, like Shelley Hughes and Mike Shower, to debate me. They couldn’t face me directly, so they sent their loyal soldier to do their bidding. Coons, ever the dutiful servant, followed orders and defended their stances—whether it was about Shower supporting electronic voting or other issues. Tragically, during this time, his wife passed away in the hospital, but that didn’t seem to slow Shower down form calling on his faithful dog. It’s clear that Coons has no problem doing what’s asked of him, even if it means putting others before his own grief.

The Uncompromising Conservative in a World of Compromise

Alaska is a place where personal responsibility and minimal government interference have historically defined the spirit of its people. But in today’s politically charged climate, maintaining these principles has become a battle—a battle where few are willing to fight and even fewer are willing to stand alone. David Eastman is one of those few. He is a man who refuses to compromise on core conservative values such as limited government, fiscal responsibility, and defending the Constitution. Despite constant attacks from both Democrats and so-called Republicans, Eastman remains steadfast, never backing down from his principles.

David Eastman isn’t your typical politician. He’s someone who lives by his principles, refuses to kowtow to political pressure, and consistently advocates for the people of Alaska over the interests of special interest groups or party politics. Critics like Mike Coons argue that Eastman doesn’t “play well with others” or that he’s ineffective because he often stands alone in his views. But here’s the thing: Eastman’s refusal to compromise on key issues is what makes him effective.

 Advertisement: Every life is a gift. Help us defend the pre-born and support families facing unplanned pregnancies. Your donation provides the resources needed to protect the most vulnerable. Donate today and make a difference in a child’s life. Stand for Life – Donate to Protect the Unborn. 

Eastman’s critics—such as Mike Coons, Greg Collins, Tiffany Fannin Lund, and David Boyle—claim that his unwillingness to compromise has made him ineffective as a legislator. These detractors argue that Eastman’s refusal to “play ball” has isolated him from the majority and rendered him politically impotent. Yet this criticism misses the mark entirely. David Eastman doesn’t need to pass a litany of bills to be effective; he just needs to stand guard. Sometimes, not passing bad legislation is more valuable than passing mediocre or harmful laws.

As we explore these criticisms and respond to each one, it will become clear that David Eastman is exactly the type of leader Alaska needs. In a world of political expediency, where compromise is often seen as virtuous, Eastman’s unyielding stance on the Constitution and conservative values is not a flaw—it’s his greatest strength. And like many principled leaders before him, his refusal to bend to political pressures only solidifies his role as one of Alaska’s most important and misunderstood legislators.

I, Pete Peterson, am a staunch supporter of David Eastman. In my view, Alaska needs more leaders like Eastman, not fewer. Through this article, I will not only address the critiques made by Mike Coons and his ilk, but also explain why their arguments are fundamentally flawed. This defense of Eastman is not just about supporting one man; it’s about defending conservative principles and the future of Alaska.

David Eastman is A True Conservative Leader

At the heart of Eastman’s political philosophy is an unwavering commitment to the Constitution. For him, limited government, fiscal conservatism, and the sanctity of life are not negotiable. Eastman does not see his role as merely a legislator who must pass as many bills as possible to be considered successful. Rather, he views his job as a defender of conservative values, someone who must stop harmful legislation and only support bills that strictly align with the Constitution.

Commitment to Conservative Principles

Eastman’s dedication to this cause is perhaps best exemplified by his perfect score on the Freedom Index, a ranking system that tracks how well legislators adhere to constitutional principles. The Freedom Index, created by the John Birch Society, is one of the few independent measures that hold legislators accountable to their core promises. A perfect score, as Eastman has earned, demonstrates his unwavering dedication to constitutional integrity. Unlike other politicians who may compromise or stray from their principles to please special interest groups or party leadership, Eastman remains focused on the one thing that truly matters—protecting the people’s liberties.

Kelly Lindsey, a “self-reported” supporter of Eastman, sums it up well:

“He follows the Constitution, he follows the law, and in this scorebook, he gets a 100.”

And this is exactly why many of us, including myself, are steadfast in our support for Eastman. In an era where political expediency often trumps principle, David Eastman is one of the few who places the Constitution above all else. He isn’t interested in racking up legislative accomplishments for the sake of appearances; he is dedicated to ensuring that any laws passed reflect the values of Alaska’s people and protect the freedoms that have made this state great.

On the Matter of Kelly Lindsey Nash

While Lindsey now going by another name—after we published articles in response to her contacting our customers and falsely accusing us of using their accounts to launder money—it’s likely she’s following orders from her masters, Phillip Allan Izon, the second, and Art Mathias who operate the money laundering machine behind the RCV repeal in Alaska. We uncovered Phil Izon’s criminal record, along with his public secrets, and personally delivered them to him on the eve of the 2022 election.

Related: The Lasting Impact of Controversial Former House Candidate Kelly Lindsey on Fairbanks

Izon’s reaction was to accuse us of making “terroristic threats” and likely encouraged turncoat liberals like Holly Sheldon Lee, Kelly Lindsey Nash, and Michael Chambers to spin outrageous stories—from falsely labeling me a serial killer who kidnaped and murdered Sunday Powers and Kami Clark to a pedophile who supposedly groomed my wife when she was 15 and I was in my late 20s.

Location: Southcentral Alaska
Type: Public Service Announcement

Dispatch Text:

The Alaska State Troopers and Anchorage Police Department have heard several rumors throughout Southcentral Alaska about a serial killer that has allegedly been murdering Alaskans in the Mat-Su Valley and Anchorage area. Investigators have found NO evidence that any of the recent murders that have occurred in the Mat-Su Valley or Anchorage area are connected in any way, and they do not appear to be random. There is NO indication of a serial killer in the Anchorage or Mat-Su Valley area. Both the Alaska State Troopers and Anchorage Police Department are committed to both seeking justice for the victims of homicide by conducting thorough criminal investigations and keeping the public informed so that they can make decisions to keep themselves and their families safe. If a serial killer were to be known by the Alaska State Troopers or Anchorage Police Department, we would not hesitate to notify the public.

Posted on 6/20/2023 3:55:06 PM by DPS\jsdougherty
Posting Section: Headquarters

Related: Alaska Crime Ring Busted: A Devastating Blow to Organized Crime

These turncoat liberals were also jet-fueled by Sen. Shelley (((Steiner))) Hughes, who went on a livestream to slander us and our customers, later-on even calling the police to have journalists removed from events. Her friends, like Carol Carman, who is married to a convicted pedophile, haven’t stopped trying to cancel these journalists who we support. So much for representative democracy, y’all!

To top it off, Kelly Nash even attacked a petition we were collecting signatures for, titled “Investigate Disenfranchisers AKPIRG for Foreign Funding Undermining of Electoral Process!”—a petition aimed at shedding light on suspicious electoral activities. Her response only strengthened suspicions, suggesting that Kelly Nash might just be a rat working to undermine the system from within.

Mike Coons’ First Critique: “David Gets Nothing Done”

But not everyone sees it this way. Mike Coons, one of Eastman’s loudest critics, has repeatedly claimed that Eastman “gets nothing done.” In Coons’ words:

“David gets nothing done. Even if we were in Anchorage, he would still not get anything done.”

To this, I can only respond with a deep sigh. Coons’ argument is not only simplistic—it’s factually wrong. Coons operates under the false assumption that the only way to measure a legislator’s success is by the number of bills they pass. In his mind, the more bills you pass, the more “effective” you are as a legislator. But this notion is as naïve as it is misguided.

Let’s break it down. Effective governance isn’t about quantity—it’s about quality. Would Coons prefer a legislator who passes dozens of harmful or unconstitutional laws? Of course not. But that’s precisely what you get when you focus on passing legislation for the sake of “GETtInG THINgs DONe” rather than evaluating each bill on its merits. Eastman’s refusal to pass bad laws is not a sign of inaction; it’s a mark of principled leadership.

House Coons’ Critique: The Obsession with Legislative Output

Coons’ obsession with legislative output is almost laughable. It’s as if he believes that every law passed, regardless of its content or impact, is inherently good. Apparently, in Coons’ world, quantity reigns supreme—just like the white t-shirt he’s proudly wearing, fresh out of the 5-pack he picked up at the store. Sure, he’s got a few more of them in his drawer, but just like his arguments, they’re flimsy, basic, and completely lacking in substance. Forget about whether the laws infringe on personal freedoms, expand government control, or waste taxpayer money—just get those laws passed!

If Coons had been around during the time of Ronald Reagan, he probably would’ve criticized Reagan for vetoing over 900 bills as Governor of California. To Coons, those vetoes would have been a sign of “inaction,” when in reality, they were the very definition of conservative governance. Reagan knew that preventing bad laws was just as important as passing good ones, and Eastman operates with that same level of insight.

The True Measure of Success: Blocking Bad Legislation

The reality is that Eastman’s effectiveness lies in his ability to stop harmful legislation from being passed, particularly bills that would increase government power or infringe on individual rights. Sometimes the best thing a legislator can do is say ‘no’, and Eastman has mastered the art of principled opposition.

In fact, preventing the expansion of government is often far more important than enacting new laws. Eastman’s legislative record isn’t defined by how many bills he’s passed, but by how many harmful bills he’s stopped. And that’s a measure of success that Coons simply doesn’t understand—or refuses to acknowledge.

Standing Alone is Not a Weakness: Addressing the Straw Man

Another frequent criticism of Eastman is that he is often an “island of one,” standing alone on votes while other Republicans follow the majority. Colleen Sullivan-Leonard expressed her frustration with Eastman’s approach, saying:

“He stands on principles yet works with Democrats against the Republican-led House Majority. It’s his way or no way.”

This argument is a classic straw man fallacy, as it misrepresents Eastman’s stance on key issues. Sullivan-Leonard’s implication is that Eastman’s refusal to compromise is based on stubbornness or ego—that he’s simply unwilling to work with others unless he gets exactly what he wants. But the truth is far more nuanced. Eastman refuses to compromise on principles like limited government, fiscal responsibility, and individual liberty, and when a bill doesn’t meet those standards, he votes against it—regardless of which party supports it.

Let’s be clear: Eastman’s job isn’t to be a rubber stamp for the Republican Party—it’s to defend the Constitution and uphold conservative values. If the Republican Majority is pushing legislation that expands government or infringes on freedoms, then it’s Eastman’s responsibility to vote against it, even if that means voting with Democrats on occasion. This isn’t stubbornness—it’s principled leadership.

The Power of Standing Alone

In politics, standing alone can often be a sign of strength, not weakness. Margaret Thatcher, Barry Goldwater, and even Ronald Reagan were often isolated in their early political careers for refusing to compromise on key issues. Thatcher was dubbed the “Iron Lady” not because she was a team player, but because she refused to back down in the face of political pressure. Similarly, Goldwater’s uncompromising stance on conservative values eventually laid the groundwork for Reagan’s political success, even though it made him an outsider within his own party.

Bub Weaver, another supporter of Eastman, said it best:

“Sounds like a good island.”

Weaver’s comment is spot on. Being an island of one isn’t a flaw when you’re standing on principle. In fact, it’s often necessary to stand alone when those around you are more interested in political expediency than protecting the freedoms of their constituents.

Eastman’s Role as a Watchdog

Eastman’s refusal to compromise doesn’t make him ineffective—it makes him a watchdog for Alaska’s future. In an era where both Democrats and Republicans have expanded the size and scope of government, we need more leaders like Eastman who are willing to stand against the tide of government overreach, even if that means standing alone.

Walter J. Hickel: A Model for Political Independence

To fully understand Eastman’s role in Alaska’s political landscape, it’s essential to look at historical figures who share his commitment to independence and principles. One of the most prominent examples is Walter J. Hickel, the former Governor of Alaska who ran under the Alaska Independence Party (AIP) and won.

Hickel was a trailblazer in Alaskan politics, often choosing principle over party. Despite being a Republican, he left the party when he felt it was no longer serving Alaska’s best interests. His “Alaska First” philosophy was rooted in the belief that Alaska’s natural resources should benefit Alaskans—not outside interests. Hickel was unafraid to stand up to both parties when he believed they were straying from this principle, and his political independence earned him both admiration and criticism.

Parallels to Eastman’s Leadership

David Eastman’s refusal to compromise on conservative principles mirrors Hickel’s political independence. Just as Hickel prioritized Alaska’s long-term interests over short-term political gains, Eastman prioritizes the Constitution and individual liberty over party loyalty. Both men understood that true leadership isn’t about following the crowd—it’s about doing what’s right, even when it’s unpopular.

Like Hickel, Eastman has faced criticism for standing alone, but this only serves to highlight his commitment to principle over politics. In a world of political expediency, where compromise is often seen as virtuous, Eastman’s unyielding stance on the Constitution is not a flaw—it’s his greatest strength.

The Value of Political Independence

The broader role of political mavericks like Hickel and Eastman cannot be overstated. In a political landscape dominated by party loyalty and special interests, figures like Eastman are a rare and necessary force for good. Political independence is often the only way to protect a state’s long-term interests, particularly when both parties are guilty of expanding government power or infringing on individual rights.

In many ways, Eastman is the modern embodiment of Hickel’s “Alaska First” philosophy. His refusal to compromise on the core values of limited government, fiscal conservatism, and constitutional integrity make him exactly the leader Alaska needs in these politically charged times.

How We Fit into the Picture

Let me take a moment to explain my own role in this debate. As a strong supporter of David Eastman, I believe that Alaska needs more leaders like him, not fewer. My own political journey has been shaped by a deep belief in limited government, individual liberty, and constitutional integrity—the same values that Eastman embodies in his legislative work.

I have long been a supporter of politicians who put principle over party, and I see Eastman as one of the few remaining leaders who is willing to do just that. Like Walter J. Hickel, Eastman is unafraid to stand alone when necessary, and that’s exactly what we need in today’s political climate.

Grassroots Support for Eastman

It’s not just about one man—David Eastman’s supporters represent a growing movement of Alaskans who are tired of the political establishment and are ready for real, principled leadership. People like myself, Pete Peterson, and others have rallied behind Eastman because we believe in his vision for Alaska’s future—one where government is small, individual liberties are protected, and the Constitution is upheld.

We see Eastman as a watchdog for our state, someone who refuses to be bought by special interests or pressured by party leadership. In my view, Alaska’s future depends on leaders like Eastman who are willing to stand firm in the face of political pressure and defend the principles that make our state great.

Mike Coons: Exposing the Flaws in His Arguments

Coons presents himself as a staunch conservative, yet his arguments reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be a true conservative. Let’s take a closer look at his critiques and expose the flaws in each one. These arguments are not only wrong—they’re laughably inconsistent.

Coons’ Argument #1: “David Gets Nothing Done”

As mentioned earlier, Coons’ main critique is that Eastman “gets nothing done” because he doesn’t pass enough bills. In Coons’ view, passing legislation is the primary measure of a legislator’s success. But this argument is not only simplistic—it’s factually wrong.

Effective governance isn’t about passing as many bills as possible—it’s about passing the right bills. In fact, stopping bad legislation is often far more important than enacting new laws. Eastman’s role as a conservative legislator is to protect Alaskans from government overreach, and sometimes that means blocking bills rather than passing them.

Coons’ obsession with legislative output would be laughable if it weren’t so misguided. By his logic, a legislator who passes dozens of bad bills is more effective than one who stops harmful legislation. This is the opposite of conservative governance, where the goal is to limit government’s role in our lives, not expand it.

Coons’ Argument #2: “David Isn’t a Team Player”

Coons also criticizes Eastman for being an “island of one,” claiming that he doesn’t work well with others and isn’t a team player. But as we’ve already discussed, not being a team player can be a strength when the “team” is pushing bad legislation.

Eastman’s role isn’t to follow the crowd—it’s to stand up for the Constitution and conservative values, even when that means going against his own party. Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and Barry Goldwater all faced similar criticism for refusing to compromise on key issues, but their principled stance ultimately made them conservative icons.

Eastman is no different. His refusal to “play ball” with party leadership doesn’t make him ineffective—it makes him a principled conservative who is willing to stand alone for what’s right.

Coons’ Argument #3: “Cost of Inaction”

Finally, Coons claims that Eastman’s refusal to pass legislation has cost the state hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal and legislative expenses. But this argument is based on misleading math and fails to account for the long-term costs of bad legislation.

By blocking harmful bills, Eastman is actually saving the state money. Passing more legislation isn’t always a good thing—especially when those bills expand government control, increase regulations, or waste taxpayer dollars. Coons’ argument is nothing more than a smoke screen designed to distract from the real issue—Eastman’s principled opposition to government overreach.

Responding to the Weak Kneed Greg Collins

The Case for Standing Firm Over Compromise

Greg Collins is another critic who argues that Eastman has made too many mistakes by refusing to compromise. In his words:

“I think Eastman has made too many mistakes. He has shot down good legislation for not being enough. Negotiations are critical. Grow up or get sent packing.”

This critique reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of conservative governance. Collins assumes that compromise is always virtuous, but the reality is that compromise often leads to bigger government, increased debt, and infringements on individual liberty.

False Equivalence of Compromise and Success

Collins’ argument is a false dichotomy—he suggests that Eastman must either compromise or be ineffective. But this ignores a third option: standing firm on principles, even if that means not compromising. True conservatives don’t compromise on core values like limited government, fiscal responsibility, and protecting life. To do so would be to abandon the very principles that define conservatism.

In fact, history is filled with examples of where compromise led to disastrous outcomes. The New Deal and Obamacare are two prime examples of government expansion that came about through compromise, and both have had long-term negative effects on the economy and individual freedoms.

Eddie Burke’s Support

Eddie Burke offers a refreshing counter to Collins’ critique, saying:

“I would rather he pander to the religious crowd than the RINO crowd.”

Burke’s statement cuts to the heart of the issue. Too many Republicans today are willing to compromise with the RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) who have no problem expanding government as long as it benefits their political careers. Eastman refuses to play that game, and that’s exactly why we need him in the legislature.

Addressing Tiffany Fannin Lund’s Ad Hominem Attacks

One of the most vocal opponents of David Eastman is Tiffany Fannin Lund, who has gone so far as to call

Eastman “unhinged” and “extreme.” In her words:

“Eastman has got to go! He is absolutely unhinged and extreme. He is also quite worthless as a legislator.”

Lund’s attack is a textbook example of an ad hominem fallacy—she’s attacking Eastman’s character rather than his policies. This type of argument is not only unproductive—it’s intellectually lazy. By focusing on Eastman’s personality instead of his voting record, Lund is engaging in a personal smear campaign rather than offering a substantive critique.

Rebuttal: Eastman’s Strategic Opposition

Far from being “worthless,” Eastman’s strategic opposition to harmful legislation has made him one of the most effective legislators in the state. His refusal to compromise on core conservative principles has protected Alaskans from government overreach and ensured that bad bills don’t become law. Lund’s personal attacks do nothing to refute this fact.

David Boyle: Misunderstanding Eastman’s Strategic Opposition

Another critic, David Boyle, has accused Eastman of “pandering to the religious crowd” and working with Democrats. Boyle’s critique is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of Eastman’s role in the legislature. Eastman doesn’t pander to anyone—he votes on principle, not party loyalty.

Rebuttal: Voting on Principle

David Eastman’s voting record speaks for itself. He has consistently voted to protect life, defend the Constitution, and limit government power. If that means voting against Republicans who are pushing big-government policies, so be it. Boyle’s critique misses the mark because it assumes that party loyalty should come before principle, but that’s not how true conservatism works.

Why Strategic Opposition is Necessary

Eastman’s role in the legislature is not to “go along to get along”—it’s to ensure that any laws passed reflect the conservative values of limited government and individual liberty. Boyle’s failure to recognize this shows a misunderstanding of conservative governance.

Pamela Melin: Rejecting the Obstructionist Label

Pamela Melin has accused Eastman of being an “obstructionist” for the sake of disruption. In her words:

“There’s a difference between standing on principle and being an outright obstructionist for the mere sake of disruption.”

Rebuttal: Strategic Obstruction

What Melin fails to realize is that obstruction isn’t always a bad thing. Sometimes, obstructing bad legislation is the most important job a legislator can do. Eastman’s so-called “obstructionism” is actually strategic—it’s designed to protect Alaskans from government overreach and ensure that only constitutional laws are passed.

Being an obstructionist is often a necessary part of governance, especially when the alternative is passing harmful or unconstitutional laws. Eastman’s refusal to compromise on key issues doesn’t make him an obstructionist—it makes him a protector of conservative values.

Kay Silverton: Guilt by Association

Kay Silverton has attacked Eastman for his association with certain supporters, claiming that Eastman’s supporters reflect poorly on him. In particular, she has cited my own comments and actions as evidence that Eastman is aligned with the wrong people. But this is a classic guilt by association fallacy.

Rebuttal: The Guilt by Association Fallacy

Just because Eastman has supporters like myself doesn’t mean that his legislative record should be judged based on our actions. Eastman’s voting record, his defense of the Constitution, and his commitment to conservative values speak for themselves. Silverton’s attempt to smear Eastman through his supporters is nothing more than a distraction from the real issue—Eastman’s effectiveness as a legislator.

Carolyn Ceigler Clift: Misrepresenting Eastman’s Values

Carolyn Ceigler Clift criticized the John Birch Society and, by extension, David Eastman‘s association with it. She claimed that the organization’s interpretation of the Constitution was against freedom for anyone who “doesn’t look like them.” In her view, the John Birch Society promoted discriminatory or exclusionary views, implying that their constitutional principles were selective and did not apply equally to all people, particularly those who didn’t fit a certain demographic.

Rebuttal: Eastman’s Perfect Score on the Freedom Index

Eastman’s perfect score on the Freedom Index is a reflection of his commitment to protecting the constitutional rights of all Alaskans. Clift’s attempt to paint Eastman as someone who is against freedom is not only dishonest—it’s a deliberate misrepresentation of his record. Eastman is a staunch defender of individual liberty, and his voting record proves it.

The Importance of the Freedom Index

One of the best indicators of Eastman’s effectiveness is his perfect score on the Freedom Index. This score reflects Eastman’s consistent defense of constitutional principles and his commitment to protecting individual liberties.

Why the Freedom Index Matters

The Freedom Index is one of the few independent measures that hold legislators accountable to their promises. A perfect score on the index is a rare achievement, and it shows that Eastman is one of the few legislators who consistently votes to uphold the Constitution. His perfect score is a testament to his dedication to conservative values and limited government.

David Eastman is the Leader Alaska Needs

As we’ve seen throughout this article, David Eastman’s critics rely on faulty arguments, logical fallacies, and misrepresentations of his record. But none of their attacks hold up under scrutiny. Eastman’s refusal to compromise on core conservative values makes him exactly the leader Alaska needs.

In a world where political expediency often takes precedence over principles, David Eastman stands as a bulwark against government overreach, wasteful spending, and attacks on individual liberty. He is a man of conviction, and his dedication to protecting the Constitution makes him a rare and necessary force in Alaska politics.

As it says in Hebrews 13:6:

“The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?”

David Eastman embodies this verse. He is unafraid to stand alone, unafraid to face criticism, and unafraid to do what’s right for Alaska. And that is why he is exactly the leader Alaska needs today.

David Eastman isn’t just standing firm on conservative principles; he’s got plenty of vocal supporters who recognize his commitment to upholding the Constitution, defending liberty, and refusing to compromise with the establishment. Let’s go through every notable quote from people who are standing by Eastman despite the coordinated attacks by figures like Mike Coons.

Eddie Burke: Eastman’s Stance on Faith and Principles

Eddie Burke comes in strong, defending Eastman’s alignment with religious values over the more compromised stances of establishment Republicans, otherwise known as RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). Burke makes it clear that Eastman’s priorities are exactly where they should be for any true conservative:

“I would rather he pander to the religious crowd than the RINO crowd.”

This quote highlights one of Eastman’s greatest strengths: his adherence to faith-based principles. In an age when many Republican lawmakers try to appease both sides, Eastman stands firm on moral values rooted in religion. Burke’s defense here is crucial because it points out that Eastman isn’t catering to the left or the establishment—he’s representing conservatives who see their religious and constitutional values under attack.

Kelly Lindsey: Eastman’s Constitutional Adherence

Kelly Lindsey repeatedly defends David Eastman’s record, emphasizing his commitment to upholding the Constitution. For Lindsey, this is the most important aspect of any legislator’s role, and Eastman is the only one who consistently gets it right:

“He follows the Constitution, he follows the law and in this scorebook, he gets a 100.”

Lindsey cuts through the noise created by Coons and others who criticize Eastman for his so-called lack of effectiveness. In Lindsey’s view, Eastman’s adherence to the Constitution isn’t just a positive trait; it’s the core of what makes him effective. She’s referencing the Freedom Index, where Eastman scored a perfect 100 for his commitment to liberty and constitutional governance. Lindsey doesn’t care if Eastman is seen as unpopular or outnumbered—what matters is that he consistently stands for what’s right.

Desiree Terry: Eastman’s Constitutional Scorecard

Desiree Terry echoes Kelly Lindsey’s sentiment but goes even further by arguing that Eastman’s refusal to compromise makes him the only legitimate representative of the people. She specifically calls out the Freedom Index and highlights how Eastman’s perfect score is something to be proud of:

“I want my representatives to adhere to the Constitution… and as you can see, David is the only rep with a 100 score in doing that… if all the reps would adhere to the Constitution no matter what, Alaska would be in a much better position.”

Terry recognizes that standing alone isn’t a weakness but a sign of strength and integrity. Eastman’s score on the Freedom Index is an objective measure that confirms what his supporters have known all along—he’s committed to following the law and defending the Constitution. Terry points out that if more legislators took Eastman’s approach, Alaska—and the country—would be better off. In a world of compromise, Eastman’s unwavering stance is a beacon of hope for conservatives.

Bub Weaver: Proud to Support Eastman

Bub Weaver also steps in to express his support for Eastman, underscoring the fact that being labeled an “extremist” or “outlier” by the left or the establishment is actually a badge of honor. Weaver states:

“I sure do like Rep. David Eastman. I don’t have anything against Jubilee either, but if I were to vote in this one, Eastman would get my nod.”

Weaver’s remarks highlight a common sentiment among Eastman’s base—Eastman may be painted as an outsider or radical, but that’s exactly what makes him the right choice for those who value constitutional fidelity. Weaver isn’t against Jubilee Underwood (who Coons is promoting), but he sees Eastman as the stronger candidate because of his unwavering commitment to conservative principles.

In a follow-up comment, Weaver adds:

“Sounds like a good island.”

This is in response to Terry’s earlier remark about wanting to live on Eastman’s metaphorical “island” of constitutional integrity. Weaver agrees that if more people joined Eastman on that island, we’d have a better political landscape. The use of the word “island” is telling—it refers to how Eastman may stand alone on many issues, but standing alone for the right reasons is far better than compromising on conservative values.

Rebecca Gall: Shocked but Still Pro-Life and Pro-Eastman

While not a direct endorsement of everything Eastman does, Rebecca Gall’s comments offer an important perspective. She notes that she’s been surprised by some of Eastman’s answers but still identifies as “highly Pro-Life.”

“I am also highly Pro-Life! These answers by Eastman were shocking to me.”

Gall represents a group of people who, while possibly perplexed by some of Eastman’s tactics or rhetoric, recognize that his strong pro-life stance is non-negotiable. This shows that even when people may disagree with Eastman’s methods or find themselves shocked by some of his responses, his unwavering commitment to life is still something that resonates deeply with his supporters.

Eddie Burke: Back Again to Defend Religious Support

Burke comes in for a second time to call out Eastman’s critics, particularly those who seem to dismiss his religious base. David Boyle had earlier commented that Eastman was pandering to religious voters, which Burke immediately took issue with:

“You act as if religious folks are bad people. Your comments are very flippant towards people who believe in God. Was that your intention? Please tell everyone.”

Burke nails it here. He’s pointing out how dismissing Eastman’s religious voters is both arrogant and dismissive of a core group of Americans who value faith and morality in governance. Burke’s defense of Eastman and his religious supporters shows that there’s a deep connection between Eastman’s political positions and his respect for Christian values.

Dana Raffaniello: Calling Out Weak GOP Members

Dana Raffaniello defends Eastman by calling out the real problem—weak Republicans who continually cave to the Democrats. Raffaniello argues that Eastman is one of the few in Alaska’s GOP who actually stands up for the Constitution:

“He is really one of the few in the Alaska GOP who stands up for the Constitution.”

Raffaniello’s defense aligns with the broader theme among Eastman’s supporters: they don’t see his isolation as a problem; they see it as proof that he’s willing to stand for conservative principles when others won’t. Raffaniello isn’t shy about calling out “weak GOP types” who have let the Democrats take control by compromising at every turn. Eastman, in his view, represents the rare Republican who won’t be swayed by the left or the establishment.

Tiffany Fannin Lund: Growing Tired of Eastman’s Critics

In a conversation more about Eastman’s critics than Eastman himself, Tiffany Fannin Lund points out that Eastman’s critics are often just frustrated that he’s not playing their game. She notes:

“I find it incredibly disrespectful to not at minimum, disqualify or comment on a known supporter’s direct and completely sick comments on women in our leadership. Yet he expects that adherence from others.”

Fannin Lund’s frustration seems to stem from the hypocrisy of Eastman’s critics. They often demand strict adherence to certain principles from Eastman but turn a blind eye to attacks on him from within their own ranks. The point she’s making is that Eastman is held to a different standard—often an unfair one—because he’s willing to stand alone.

Rep. Eastman’s Supporters Stand Strong!

Despite the attacks, David Eastman’s supporters aren’t wavering. From his commitment to the Constitution to his firm stance on pro-life issues and religious values, Eastman’s backers see him as one of the few remaining true conservatives in a landscape overrun by compromise and political gamesmanship. Whether it’s Kelly Lindsey praising his perfect score on the Freedom Index or Eddie Burke calling out the arrogance of those who dismiss religious voters, the message is clear: David Eastman is doing exactly what he was elected to do.

Eastman’s critics, like Mike Coons, can complain all they want, but the reality is that Eastman’s supporters value his integrity and commitment to standing up for what’s right, even if it means standing alone. That’s what true leadership looks like.

Following in Hickel’s Footsteps

When I look at my own political journey, I see many parallels with Walter J. Hickel. Like Hickel, I refuse to follow the establishment’s rules just because it’s the easy thing to do. Hickel left the Republican Party when it no longer served Alaska’s interests, joining the Alaskan Independence Party (AIP) because he believed that putting Alaska first was more important than party loyalty. Similarly, I’ve never hesitated to back candidates like David Eastman who represent true conservative values, even when they’re not popular within the GOP.

I believe, like Hickel, that politics shouldn’t be about consensus for the sake of consensus. It should be about advancing ideas that truly benefit Alaska, even if that means pushing back against both parties. Just as Hickel championed Alaska’s ownership of its resources and pushed back against federal control, I too believe that we must protect Alaska’s autonomy, defend the Constitution, and resist the urge to compromise with political elites who don’t have our best interests at heart.

To the Greg Collins Republicans out there who believe that compromise is key, I ask you to reconsider. Compromise has its place, but not when it means abandoning the very principles that define us as conservatives. David Eastman’s refusal to back down isn’t a flaw—it’s his greatest strength. In a world full of politicians who say one thing and do another, we need more leaders like David Eastman, who aren’t afraid to stand firm on what’s right.

As Hebrews 13:6 reminds us: “The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?” David Eastman lives out this truth in his approach to politics, standing strong in the face of opposition, knowing that true leadership is about not bending to the winds of compromise.