So far I haven't seen a strong explanation about why he wouldn't be. There is much to hate about Trump—I in particular worry about the way he raises the risks of global nuclear war: <a href="https://jakeseliger.com/2016/11/28/trump-fears-and-the-nuclear-apocalypse" rel="nofollow">https://jakeseliger.com/2016/11/28/trump-fears-and-the-nucle...</a> —but it seems unwise to automatically oppose anyone he proposes for his Cabinet.<p>It is also not impossible that he will appoint a good FDA commissioner: <a href="http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/01/will-trump-appoint-great-fda-commissioner.html" rel="nofollow">http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/01/wil...</a>.<p>One should reserve opprobrium for where it is deserved and not fire it off generically, especially based on innuendo. Again, that is not to approve (<a href="https://jakeseliger.com/2016/10/10/vote-for-clinton-or-johnson-for-president/" rel="nofollow">https://jakeseliger.com/2016/10/10/vote-for-clinton-or-johns...</a>), but it should contextualize the discussion. As far as I can tell, Tillerson <i>could</i> be an excellent Secretary of State. He <i>could</i> also be a terrible one.
I watched his hearing and was really expecting to dislike the guy. He actually sounded very reasonable and had well thought out answers to each question. Whether he can truly avoid any conflict of interest has yet to be seen. He is definitely a bit suspect given his previous position.