'Poisonous coda' or rule of law?

Frank over at Internet Commentator applauds John Kerry's concession of defeat.

I think Kerry's decision was a wise one. Far from being razor thin like in Florida's 2000 contest, the Ohio race would've required a mathematical miracle for him to win.

That said, I disagree with Frank's implication that Gore's legal challenges in 2000 were long drawn out poisonous coda to the election and that a repeat would've given the impression that the Democrats were sore losers.

I'm a little tired of the notion that letting the legal and electoral processes run their course should be scrapped for some fake sense of "unity." Or that insisting the legal and electoral processes is sore loser-ness or putting party ahead of country or inflicting a poison on the electorate. Americans are big boys and girls. We've had the same system for electing presidents for nearly two centuries. An extra week or two to make sure it was done right was never going to cause the collapse of the Republic.

Contrary to what one might infer from Frank's characterization, Al Gore and the Democrats did not start riots in 2000. They did not call for general strikes. They did not engage in looting and pillaging. They did not attack Bush supporters. They merely asked the courts to rule on the dispute. When the highest court ultimately ruled against him, Gore did not whine about the ruling. He did not undermine Bush's legitimacy. In fact, he immediately conceded once the verdict was rendered.

It seems to me the ideal way to settle electoral disputes. Not a "poisonous coda."