Pop quiz: Which political party's press secretary put out a press release today that criticizes Sen. Rand Paul because he "blames America…on foreign soil" and subscribes to a radical isolationist policy that would "make American less safe and secure"?

Read the whole thing before you find out if your guess is right:

It's disappointing that Rand Paul, as a Senator and a potential presidential candidate, blames America for all the problems in the world, while offering reckless ideas that would only alienate us from the global community. Unfortunately, this is nothing new for Paul. Last week he criticized American policy to the president of another country on foreign soil. This week he's blaming the Obama Administration for another nation's civil war. That type of "blame America" rhetoric may win Paul accolades at a conference of isolationists but it does nothing to improve our standing in the world. In fact, Paul's proposals would make America less safe and less secure. Simply put, if Rand Paul had a foreign policy slogan, it would be—The Rand Paul Doctrine: Blame America. Retreat from the World.

And the answer is…the Democrats. The above statement comes from DNC National Press Secretary Michael Czin. You would be forgiven for thinking otherwise; this is the exact criticism that Republicans have hurled at both Democrats and members of the Paul family for years. But with Rand Paul as the likely Republican presidential contender and interventionist Hillary Clinton as his likely opponent, the absurdities of party politics demand a switching of the unhinged attacks.

Here is an excerpt from Paul's op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, which prompted Czin's reply:

To interventionists like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, we would caution that arming the Islamic rebels in Syria created a haven for the Islamic State. We are lucky Mrs. Clinton didn't get her way and the Obama administration did not bring about regime change in Syria. That new regime might well be ISIS. This is not to say the U.S. should ally with Assad. But we should recognize how regime change in Syria could have helped and emboldened the Islamic State, and recognize that those now calling for war against ISIS are still calling for arms to factions allied with ISIS in the Syrian civil war. We should realize that the interventionists are calling for Islamic rebels to win in Syria and for the same Islamic rebels to lose in Iraq. While no one in the West supports Assad, replacing him with ISIS would be a disaster. Our Middle Eastern policy is unhinged, flailing about to see who to act against next, with little thought to the consequences. This is not a foreign policy…. But the same is true of hawkish members of my own party. Some said it would be "catastrophic" if we failed to strike Syria. What they were advocating for then—striking down Assad's regime—would have made our current situation even worse, as it would have eliminated the only regional counterweight to the ISIS threat. Our so-called foreign policy experts are failing us miserably. The Obama administration's feckless veering is making it worse. It seems the only thing both sides of this flawed debate agree on is that "something" must be done. It is the only thing they ever agree on. But the problem is, we did do something. We aided those who've contributed to the rise of the Islamic State. The CIA delivered arms and other equipment to Syrian rebels, strengthening the side of the ISIS jihadists. Some even traveled to Syria from America to give moral and material support to these rebels even though there had been multiple reports some were allied with al Qaeda.

As evidenced above, Paul is consistent in his foreign policy opinions, unlike many Democrats or his fellow Republicans. Expect more soundbite switcheroo as campaign season gears up.