George Soros: Bogeyman -- when and why?

Factual Questions
1

This will probably end up in GD or the Pit, but I am looking for a factual answer.

It seems to me that conservative journalists, pundits, and bloggers like to use George Soros as a bogeyman. It seems like they say “here’s someone on the left with a lot of money, so he must be evil.” Unfortunately, I don’t have a cite handy, but I’m sure those of you “in the know” could come up with some examples.

So my question is, when and why did conservatives start going after Soros, and why? All I can figure out so far is that he made a boatload of money in currency speculation and in other business and then he decided to use some of that money to political ends; whether in Eastern Europe or here in the U.S. What’s wrong with that? I imagine all sorts of wealthy people do this sort of thing all the time. Why is Soros so high profile.

Again, I’m really looking for a factual answer, but I know this is one of those things where one person’s “facts” may differ significantly from another person’s “facts.” Mods, feel free to move as appropriate.

2

One problem conservatives (and many on the left wing as well) have with Soros is that he advocates ending the war on drugs and ending the laws against unregulated use and possession. That’s always a lightning rod.

3

For what it’s worth, this line in Soros’s Wikipedia entry matches my memory: “In the United States, he is known for having donated large sums of money in a failed effort to defeat President George W. Bush’s bid for re-election in 2004.” I think that’s when his “bogeyman” reputation really started, though of course he was a well-known figure before then.

4

They needed someone on the Left to portray as an equivalent of their own Richard Mellon Scaife. Soros’s efforts to defeat Bush in 2004 made him their favored whipping-boy.

5

He’s also been a big (biggest?) backer of MoveOn, which is another favorite target.

But, yeah, it’s largely due to his 2004 backing of pretty much anyone running against Bush.