Is Charter Communications telling it "like it is" on patent reform?

Grier C. Raclin, executive vice president and general counsel of Charter Communications Inc., advocates passage of patent reform in an op-ed --Missouri's inventors need patent-law revision-- which notes:

As a Missouri-based communications company, Charter Communications relies on advancements and improvements in information technologies to ensure that our customers have access to the most-valuable and -affordable communications and entertainment available.

(...)

For this to happen, we need a patent system that fairly protects the pioneering work of Missourians and guards against abuse of the system by those who seek to profit from existing loopholes in patent law.

Mr. Raclin does not mention that Charter was on the losing end of a CAFC decision, in which Charter made a bad argument about priority dates. Broadcast v. Charter, 2005,
mentioned in IPBiz:

http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2005/08/broadcast-v-charter-priority-date.html

Mr. Raclin brings up patent quality: If passed, the PRA would clarify patent guidelines to improve overall patent quality and protect against frivolous lawsuits.

IPBiz asks Mr. Raclin: what's your evidence for the PRESENCE of poor patent quality?

IPBiz also asks Mr. Raclin: if the suit by Broadcast against you was frivolous, why did your co-defendant (Comcast) settle?

In the absence of solid evidence to back up the assertions, the argument might look like that of one who lost a patent case, rather than of one who really wants to improve the system.