Maverick good, Rogue bad
"This was a partisan led inquiry run by (Barack) Obama supporters and the Palins were completely justified in their concern regarding Trooper (Michael) Wooten given his violent and rogue behavior," the campaign's statement said.The difference? Both stand out as being "different". One has the connotation of being branded "bad". The other lacks any connotation of being branded at all, good or bad, so could be either.
Identifying oneself as maverick does not make any claim to being good, just different, with the implication, but not promise, it is for goodness sake, because it is just as honest to call yourself maverick and be a scoundrel. It's saying, "No promises made, you just have to trust me, now look the other way and leave me to my maverick ways".
When looking for direction and guidance, you're better off dealing with a rogue, because at least you know what you're dealing with and can trust the rogue to be up to no good. A maverick is a jack-in-a-box, and you just never know whether, where or when it will pop up.