Why does the author use the expression, “What was being considered a howitzer that sputtered” when talking about the issue in question?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage:

In the mid-term elections this year, the focus has shifted from individual bashing to issue based bashing and for once, both the parties – the Democrats and the Republicans, have agreed upon an issue that they both want to take to the cleaners. Surprisingly however, both the parties are blaming each other for the present fiasco and the target is the same- the biggest trade partner of the USA, and also its biggest creditor- People’s Republic of China. What was being considered a howitzer that sputtered, the issue of trade relations and other issues- real and imagined- with China has suddenly taken the centre stage in the electoral campaigning with the xenophobes on both sides of the political divide pointing accusing fingers at each other for putting national interest in harm’s way. The situation has been further exacerbated by a futuristic advertisement that has been brought out by a citizen’s forum called Citizens Against Government Waste in which a Chinese professor is shown addressing a group of Chinese students in Beijing in the year 2030 and explaining why great nations like Ancient Rome, The British Empire, and The United States failed. Talking of misguided American policies the professor says that since they- the Americans- owed most of their debt to the Chinese, now they- the citizens of USA, work for them- the citizens of China. While the ordinary citizens are divided in their opinion about the authenticity of the facts claimed in the advert, with reactions as diverse as chalk and cheese, there is no doubt that the advert has touched a very raw nerve indeed. Acting as a catalyst, the so called advert of the season has brought into sharp focus the American trade policies and the public perception about the same. Jingoism has taken on a more rabid, more vocal avatar- fanned by the developments on the electoral front.

Incumbents and challengers on both the sides have suddenly found a new horse to flog and the speech writers and the think-tanks on both the sides are busy trying to find out in minutest detail anything and everything that they can pin on the other side with respect to them having sold the nation down the river and to the Chinese. It is hardly new for the political aspirants in any nation blame someone in another country for their nation’s woes but this time around, for the first time perhaps, the fall guy is common for both the sides and he also happens to own increasing stakes in the nation. It is not a Vietnam, where apart from lives of thousands of GIs and lots of money, nothing much was at stake. For the sake of sanity and reason, one hopes that the present tirades will be brushed under the carpet once the electioneering is over and also that the Chinese will be reacting with equanimity on all the rhetoric being thrown around as the relations between the two super powers are already strained over the stubborn refusal of the Chinese on the issue of currency revaluation and the increasing protectionism being seen as a part of the new United States policy. In a sign of the times, in a recent poll, more than fifty percent of the Americans polled said that they believed that free trade had been harmful for the country.