According to Ben Smith ("Palin allies report rising campaign tension", Politico, 10/25/2008):
Four Republicans close to Palin said she has decided increasingly to disregard the advice of the former Bush aides tasked to handle her, creating occasionally tense situations as she travels the country with them. Those Palin supporters, inside the campaign and out, said Palin blames her handlers for a botched rollout and a tarnished public image — even as others in McCain's camp blame the pick of the relatively inexperienced Alaska governor, and her public performance, for McCain's decline.
"She's lost confidence in most of the people on the plane," said a senior Republican who speaks to Palin, referring to her campaign jet. He said Palin had begun to "go rogue" in some of her public pronouncements and decisions.
"I think she'd like to go more rogue," he said.
I haven't had the time or motivation to read all 637 comments on Smith's post, but a quick scan suggests that no one has yet complained that "go rogue" and "go more rogue" are ungrammatical. I doubt that this is because prescriptivists don't read Politico — perhaps they're temporarily distracted by partisan enthusiasm. It's certainly not likely that the would-be defenders of our linguistic civilization have accepted this construction, despite its use over the years by English writers and speakers of all kinds.
It was a prescriptivist intervention that led me to discuss a related set of examples several years ago ("To pass into a certain condition, chiefly implying deterioration", 6/30/2004). One of William Safire's readers, Daniel Baldwin of New York, appealed for confirmation of his view that "the term 'goes missing' is grammatically incorrect". Mr. Safire sensibly disagreed, and I risked expulsion from the LSA by supporting and even praising his analysis.
As I observed,
"go PREDICATIVE" often suggests that the predicative is a kind of deterioration: go bad, go ballistic, go bananas, go bankrupt, go blank, go cold, go crazy, go dead, go gray, go Hollywood, go lame, go mad, go native, go numb, go nuclear, go nuts, go sour, go vacant, go wrong.
Sometimes the corresponding positively-evaluated condition doesn't work: go bad but ?go good (in the sense of "become good", not as an informal version of "go well"), go crazy but ?go sane. However, there are some positively evaluated conditions in common inchoative collocations with go: go live, go platinum, go blonde.
On the other hand, there are also common adjectives expressing deterioration that don't seem to work well with go, preferring get instead: ?go sick, ?go fat, ?go dizzy, ?go sleepy, ?go antsy.
Note also that the meaning of the predicate is often restricted: thus went dead is fine if you're talking about a phone line or a radio, but doesn't work to mean that an animate being died.
All in all, the collocational propensities of go, in this construction, seem much more like derivational morphology than like normal compositional syntax.
But in any case, Mr. Baldwin was all wet, in the curious manner of those prescriptivists who allow their rationalizations to overcome their common sense. The rationalization, in this case, seems to be that missing modifies go, and therefore must be an adverb. Since missing doesn't have the form of an adverb — well, the obvious conclusion is that the analysis is wrong, and we should think again about the structure of this indubitably grammatical English phrase.
There's a subtle difference between "go rogue" (and "go crazy/native/missing/etc.") and a number of other "<motion-verb> <state-expression>" cases discussed in several posts last year ("Amid this vague uncertainty, who walks safe?", 2/23/2007; "A moment that never going to lost", 3/18/2007; "The Grammar Vandal strikes in Boston", 7/16/2007). When you "go crazy", you've undergone a change of state. First you weren't crazy, then you were. But if a river "runs smooth", it needn't ever have run any other way.
Of course, go is a motion verb, and so
Do not go gentle into that good night
is no more suggestive of a change of state than
The course of true love never did run smooth
In any case, "go rogue" is not a new coinage. A search on Google Books suggest that it's especially popular in science fiction and fantasy, most often applied to robots, cyborgs, or other intelligent machines such as spaceship AIs, but also to members of fantasy races such as spell-bound animal spirits, vampires, elves, and so on. Of the first 50 Google Books hits that I checked, more than half seem to be of this kind. Close in second place are cases of intelligence agents or "black ops" specialists who "go rogue" by pursuing a private agenda without the approval of their handlers. And of course there are a few elephants and other real-world animals. Oh, and a woman in a romance novel who escapes the bounds of politeness to make a scandalous scene ("Everyone she passed there stared […] as if they didn't know when she'd go rogue on them again, and they certainly wouldn't approve if she did, but they didn't want to miss it if possible.")
It's interesting — but not surprising — that (some) political operatives think of their candidates in the way that others think of robots, animals, elves, and death-squad members: useful but dangerous creatures whose initiative needs to be carefully restrained by programming, training, or magical spells.