Actually, I don't think BXVI is a wolf in sheep's clothing. And I think Levada might not be that bad for the position, after all - go to the links on the other thread and read a more extensive selection of his writings. I just think he was not an effective bishop and didn't have what it took to stand up to the VatII nutcases out in SF. He walked into a very conflictive situation and they ran right over him; believe it or not, however, many of the SF clergy write about how they "hate" him for being so conservative!
I don't think Levada's new responsibilities are going to put him in such a position again, because it sounds as if the Pope himself is planning on doing the enforcement (which is the way it used to be prior to VatII). I think Levada will be more of a coordinator and spokesman.
I have been told that he had a terrible time with some major law suit and perhaps this has been one of the reasons his tenure as Arch-bishop has been rocky. Some of us back here in Michigan have been wondering if Bishop Vignoran will be tapped as his replacement.