The “yeah” shouts came before Ron Paul responded to anything, so I don’t see how they can be set to his account. The same could be said of the other candidates, as well. As for not making an explicit comment on the audience’s behavior, Oratory 101 tells us the best way to disagree with an audience—especially one that is on your side—is not to call out individual audience members. The proper response is not to say “you’re wrong,” but to try changing minds with your answer. Then, when asked about it later, Paul and the others should just say something like this:
“People started shouting in the middle of the question. Was it because they thought it was a good question? Was it because they thought we really should just pull the plug on everyone without insurance? No one asked them, so we don’t know. What I think, however, is that it was a good question and that the proper response is more complicated than either killing them all or covering them all.”
They will then need an answer to the original question, of course, but this is just a response to the controversy. It has several advantages, not the least of which is that it’s both true and sets the proper rhetorical tone. It respects the fact that people were put off by the shouts without giving credence to the view that they have any deep meaning. It also gives people a way to change their position without embarrassing themselves.
For however much we might not like it, people are more likely to dig in their heels and say “I really think we should pull the plug on everyone without insurance” if the options we given them are “admit you were wrong” or “raise the ante.” But if we give them the options of “you were misinterpreted” or “raise the ante,” people are willing to back off from what may have been merely an extremist impulse that they later thought better of. Did certain audience members reveal something distasteful about themselves? Perhaps. But I’m more interested in getting them to back off of that view than I am in flogging them for their mistake.