Unfortunately nearly all decision making processes are vulnerable to this kind of attack: processes are never clear, selection criteria always up for debate, and generally people pick a special option to present preferentially.
This generally just leads to suboptimal decision making - we're lucky to have DJB's focus here to improve this one.
If I were carrying out this attack against NIST, and it had failed up to now (i.e. they chose 'wrong' from my perspective), my next step would surely be to publish something which calls into question the conclusion they came to. This would cause everyone involved to start second guessing, loose confidence in the process, and make it easier to re-mount the attack either now, or in the future.
N.b. I assume this document has been written in good faith and with the best of intentions. It's just hard not to see some contradictions mixed up in there.
Supposing this is DJB attacking the process, well, the other participants can simply find the fly in his ointment, point it out, and stop the attack. It's hard to argue that DJB's paper doesn't represent progress then since we can both, reason about its claims and reason about it being an instance of an attack on the process, whereas prior to this we weren't seriously considering attacks on the process at all.