That's half the battle. Now, about those specific words. …
Here I am less impressed. Perry's argument on Social Security is that it's a Ponzi Scheme and that it's unsustainable. That's part of the problem. Now, if we take James Madison at his word (after all, he did write the "general welfare" clause), where in the enumerated powers delegated to the federal Congress did 
grant Congress the authority to set up any retirement program, let alone one that is structured as a Ponzi scheme.
Why isn't Perry asking that question in public as well? If he's going to take on "entitlements," thats one thing that needs to be brough out.
This country has lost our way. One thing that TEA Partiers know is that the Constitution still matters. To the "Ruling class," the Constitution is an impediment to "progress."
It's not just Obama and the Democrats that believe this. The establishment, "ruling class" Republicans have no respect for constitutional limitations either. Where in the enumerated powers delegated to the federal Congress did grant Congress the authority to set up a "prescription drug insurance program." When that was being discussed, I asked my (alegedly conservative) Republican Congress Critter that question, and got no real answer, just stammering and "Chewbacca defense."
We'll see if issues like this come up in the debate Monday. I hope someone will ask questions like this. I look forward to hearing the answers.
In general, Repulicans (establishment, ruling class Republicans) pay lip service to "limited government," but they believe in some amorphous, undefined limits, and when they get control (witness 2001 through 2006), they expand those limits to suit their whims. Campaign Finance reform and prescription drug "benefits" are two obvious examples.
This country needs to return to our Constitutional roots. If any candidate wants to lead in that direction, I'd be behind them 100%. But I don't hear that from very many Republicans.