[We may have to defend him for Alaska's sake.]
I'm curious about what you think is "Alaska's sake" and how it is served by defending Eastman's speech (though not necessarily his position)?  There are less contentious (and more political) ways to go about an issue.  Either Eastman is a poor politician or his request for the Legislature to "look into it" was a throwaway pretext to defend his position.  Neither of which are good for "Alaska's sake."  We've already seen how entrenched ideology has resulted in a dysfunctional Congress but it seems you believe it won't be anything but bad for Alaska.