Since corporations are anathema to communism and nationalism nearly as much so (communism sees the the proletariat dictatorship and revolution, and the state as an obstacle, hence Marxs prediction and Lenins call for a global revolution) saying fascism, predicated on corporate power, is closer to the communism that abhors such power than to the capitalism that embraces it is (once again) factually inaccurate. Your statement reflects a partisan and deeply flawed understanding of political science. Since we're here, however, and everyone else wants to indulge my beloved tangents, I'll presume to instruct an elder:

I'm an ardent liberal and ABHOR communism. Lesson 1: Just because you're on the correct end of the political spectrum doesn't mean no one else on that end is reprehensible. In my early teens I believed Mao and Stalin (though not Lenin, he knew his poly sci) were simply evil men who made communism a vehicle for personal power without BELIEVING in it for a moment, but, fact is, it doesn't matter, because the absolutist nature of communism will produce the same totalitarian oppression and abuse even if begun by the most sincere and noble of leaders. From a pure poly sci perspective incremental socialism is eminently better because it avoids those excesses by allowing, nay, REQUIRING a robust capitalist element (we can call this Lesson 2 since core far right doctrine teaches that socialism abolishes private enterprise). From a purely historical perspective (which was the one on which Marx based the Communist Manifesto) incremental socialism has repeatedly proven Marx wrong because its incremental, democratic and PEACEFUL reforms have aborted any risk of the global communist revolution Marx said was inevitable. Hardcore communists really hate this, by the way, consider socialism little more than another "capitalist running dog" in the way of their glorious bloodbath.

I can't speak for Ms. Giffords; leading liberals has been likened to herding cats for a reason. However, while I happen to believe such imagery less common on the left, whether or not that's true I do know it's out there and I have consistently disavowed it. I would hope Ms. Giffords does the same, but I don't speak for her and honestly can't say.

At the very least it's connected in that Palin used an image involving a gun and Ms. Giffords mentioned it, then a gun was used in an attempt to kill her. That's two connections right there, even if coincidental; whether more exist is UNPROVEN EITHER WAY since Loughner refuses to say anything. However, as I've said repeatedly, the sheer volume of violent imagery and rhetoric coming from far right demagogues made it almost inevitable that some nut would shoot SOMEONE who'd mentioned an example of it, and that link would immediately be all over the airwaves. Hopefully there won't be more; more such events would hurt the demagogues politically, but the price is too high. There are more important things than winning elections. Really.

If I'm understanding that last sentence correctly, if someone got shot in the leg (in Tucson?) and then made a death threat against a Tea Party member I naturally condemn and repudiate that as well. If someone made a death threat against the person who shot them I'd still condemn, though understand, it if the shooter is in custody. If Ms. Giffords is in command of her faculties I'd be surprised if she doesn't have something to say when she recovers; it should be very interesting. Maybe Palin will remain adamant; after all, the Republicans lodged the charge of cowardly treason against a man who lost three limbs serving his country in Vietnam, and a life long civilian called another decorated Vietnam vet a coward on the floor of the US House, but both accusers remain in office, so GOP leaders seem capable of anything at this point.