It is only in his second generation appointments that [the Pope] can finally have some confidence in their orthodoxy.
I agree that bishops have been improving, but there are a couple of things that puzzle me. First of all, they are not really of a different generation - many of the "bad" VatII bishops in the US were appointed when they were very, very young, and the "good" ones who are being appointed now are in many cases almost the same age as the others. In my diocese, for example, the new bishop was 67 when he was appointed, and is now 71 (which I believe is even older than some undeniably bad bishops, such as Mahoney). So I think there always were good candidates, but they were passed over.
Another factor may have been that the papal nuncio changed. He seems to be the one who makes the recommendations on appointments. Pio Laghi, who was the nuncio, was terrible, and I think the one before him was not much better. (I'm not sure who it is now, but he certainly seems to be making better recommendations.)
Those apostates then ascended to power positions in the USCCB and were able to send only three tried and true fellow travelers to the Vatican. I know that many good Bishops were placed,many by accident,but they could be effectively muzzled by the Bernardins and Mahoneys and Deardens.
Even now one of their men is in position to take over the chairmanship/presidency of the USCCB. It's Skylstad of Spokane and he is bad. I hope and pray that the good Bishops are in a position to establish a new protocol. Currently the vice-prez or cochairman steps up,Skylstad is in that position now.