I generally I agree this has been blown out of proportion. There was fault on both sides here, and it's a story we've seen play out before. Hopefully we can do better in future.
On the Senate side, it was proper for the Senators to be skeptical and be extra diligent in the circumstances. I'll take them at their word that that was their intent, but the way they framed their questions gave rise to the reasonable interference that they were opposed to the nomination in principle, rather than diligent.
On the Executive side, I think pulling the nomination was premature. Prim had concluded Maowi was the best person for the job, and there was still a good chance they would be confirmed. Another round of questioning and/or private discussion would not have caused any more delay than submitting a new nominee (and, in light of current developments, significantly less delay).
With regard to the original article, I don't think the characterization of Rand's questions is fair. His set of questions get to the heart if the issue of people holding multiple roles. I.e., why choose this person who has other commitments over other people who don't? If the executive has a good answer to that (which in this case they did) the nomination is not a problem, but if they don't, then that is indicative of a problem that deserves further consideration. He probably could have gotten there with fewer questions, but I don't think we should be over critical of confirmation hearings being too detailed when our historical norm has been senators not asking enough.