Just for a different perspective...
When I look at a state or local candidate, I'm very concerned about their overall stance on education, and how homeschooling fits into that. There's really no generalisation to be made between the parties, but it tends to be more of a candidate-to-candidate issue. (In Georgia's school supe race in 2002, for example, the best position came from the Green candidate, then the Libertarian, then the Democrat, then the Republican, IMO - but the Republican won, and she hasn't said a word either way since).
In national politics, however, I don't look at a candidate's personal feelings on homeschooling, because they matter very very little. What does matter, I feel, is their stance on the role of government oversight in education, their stance on vouchers (I'm wary of anyone who wants to offer them to hs'ers, for example; there's no such thing as a free lunch), and other issues of government oversight involvement in people's lifes and in state affairs.
Currently, there's an underfunded federal mandate in education, and there are tools in place to track various pieces of information about American citizens. No, they aren't in place to track homeschoolers, but if the tools are there, the target can always change!
Which is all my roundabout way of saying that though I suppose it might seem on the surface like Bush might be more homeschooling-friendly, many of his policies could easily backfire on homeschoolers, and he's pushed the federal government into an issue that's typically been for state and local governments - which seems to me to threaten education owned by the parents even further.
Just my $.02
