You seem to be going out of your way to misread his comments as literal. If you visited the bird names website, you will see that they have an ongoing project to gather and write up the biographies of all the folks in patronyms. He didn't just stop at two and go "good enough"A blanket rule may be easier to deal with, and not dealing with the folks who might be more in the gray, as you put it is a long way from the concept of Americans revelling in rising to a challenge as in:
"We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too." JFK, 12 September 1962. That speech inspired me then and continues to do so.
Jordan Rutter makes a salient point that many of the names are of people whose behaviour and actions in their lives were at times foul and objectionable, even in their day, but he shies away from examining each case on its merits, it seems, because he was so upset about those he checked out that he doesn't want to apply due diligence to every name. His examples are good, and makes a good case for changing them. That does not mean that all names will encounter the same degree of offence. His approach borders on the messianic, instead of calling for evidence-based decisions on the unexamined cases. Doing so will be hard, but isn't that what Americans can do so well?