Romney's writers could use a little lesson in semi-colons. Or maybe we would be allowed to hunt, shoot, and protect our families, homes, and property if he were elected? Seems a little incongruous to me!
Here's another amusing dangling modifier. In this case, you are run by two former Portland chefs. I think not! Also, there is a comma missing after "chefs."
Aside from the amusing spelling mistake, this example highlights a conundrum of nuance. There ought to be, I think, a comma before "showing." The lack of comma is not incorrect per se, but it gives a different meaning than its presence would. Currently, the "showing" clause is restrictive -- it's essential to the sentence just like a clause starting with 'that.' (See what I've done here ... it's a clause starting with that -- the fact that it starts with 'that' is essential to the meaning.) That is, this member of Congress is defined by the fact that he shows. With a comma, the clause would be non-restrictive or non-essential and denote that the showing is a separate action, which, in this case, is probably the case. That is, he is not necessarily defined by the fact that he shows but is rather showing through this one action.